View Full Version : Can I get an AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
boondocksaint
04-16-09, 19:58
:o Just heard on Fox News....OBAMA has announced he will NOT ban "assault weapons"....
Maybe somebody actually told him that "assault weapons" are used in maybe 1% of murders...and, oh by the way, something like 30% of murders are committed without ANY firearms at all!
Oh, please let the panic buying stop...(maybe then I'll be able to get my hands on a BCM upper) :D
citizensoldier16
04-16-09, 20:06
Do you have a link or anything to back this up? He's got 3 years 9 months to change his mind. I'm not letting out a sigh of relief yet.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-17.html
boondocksaint
04-16-09, 20:08
Do you have a link or anything to back this up? He's got 3 years 9 months to change his mind. I'm not letting out a sigh of relief yet.
No, I just have the XM sat radio on in my office and heard it....
citizensoldier16
04-16-09, 20:10
Did some searching using my Google-fu and found this:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-17.html
President Obama Suggests Pushing for "Assault Weapon" Ban Not In the Cards
April 16, 2009 7:05 PM
"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals," then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign stated. "Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen."
That ban expired in 2004, and Mexican President Calderon recently told Nightline that he thought "it was very good legislation. During that period, we didn't suffer a lot, like we suffered in the four or five years" since it expired.
But the White House has indicated it is not willing to expend political capital on the issue. At a joint press conference with President Calderon, President Obama just now said that he has not backed "off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban made sense...Having said that, none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy."
"What we've focused on how we can improve our enforcement under existing laws," Mr. Obama said.
Calderon said that he understands that "this is a politically delicate topic" in the US.
Asked what the administration can do to stem the tide of guns illegally going to the Mexico, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said that "first and foremost, it is to enforce particularly the laws that we have on the books, especially those related to the trafficking of arms."
Gibbs added that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently spoke about the administration's "commitment to far stronger inspections of items that are moving from north to south, as well as moving from south to north."
Is the president backing off his campaign promise to re-instate the ban?
"Well, the President's position was known in the campaign: He supports it," Gibbs said. "The President is also, though, focused on making some -- taking actions to stem the flow of guns moving south that go across the border, but making progress on something that we are likely to see progress on."
- Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
April 16, 2009
the obamanation won't "ban" "assault rifles," he'll do, or instigate, something much worse.
The_War_Wagon
04-16-09, 20:21
Do you have a link or anything to back this up? He's got 3 years 9 months to change his mind. I'm not letting out a sigh of relief yet.
Yep. "Lying DEMOCRAPS" have been KNOWN to 'happen'... :mad:
RogerinTPA
04-16-09, 20:35
Not yet anyway.He's conducting CYA Operations. He'll go after ammo, which is not covered by the 2d Amendment.
geminidglocker
04-16-09, 20:48
Ban ammo? That's not in The Constitution? Neither is the word guns or firearms. Better go after my fork, spoon, butterknife, or vehicle. If I use one of those to commit a crime, does it become an "Assault spoon", or an"Assault truck?" heck, may as just well ban life itself, so that we will have covered all the bases. You can't constitutionally ban ammunition any more than you can guns. They are arms. I could rig a cartridge to a ignition device, force it deep within someones eyesocket, detonate, and the death is just as immidiate as if I shot someone from 70 yds. away. A stick could be banned according to this line of thinking. If it can kill, it must be an assault something or other,. Arms means arms, plain and simple.
The right to bear them does not necessarily define that which you have the right to bear.
:o Just heard on Fox News....OBAMA has announced he will NOT ban "assault weapons"....
Maybe somebody actually told him that "assault weapons" are used in maybe 1% of murders...and, oh by the way, something like 30% of murders are committed without ANY firearms at all!
Oh, please let the panic buying stop...(maybe then I'll be able to get my hands on a BCM upper) :D
Were his lips moving? :p
I will second what rharris2163 above said. He will not go after the assault type weapons just yet , but look out ammo . He is a charmer that eventually will be a disarmer.
:o Just heard on Fox News....OBAMA has announced he will NOT ban "assault weapons"....
Maybe somebody actually told him that "assault weapons" are used in maybe 1% of murders...and, oh by the way, something like 30% of murders are committed without ANY firearms at all!
Oh, please let the panic buying stop...(maybe then I'll be able to get my hands on a BCM upper) :D
Hate to sound skeptical here, but did you watch any of his campaign speeches and the promises he made, and then summarily broke?!
I can only hope that this drives down prices...
Not yet anyway.He's conducting CYA Operations. He'll go after ammo, which is not covered by the 2d Amendment.
That sounds about right... Either that or put a huuuge tax on them so that most people will just choose not or won't be able to buy.
Heavy Metal
04-16-09, 21:55
I will second what rharris2163 above said. He will not go after the assault type weapons just yet , but look out ammo . He is a charmer that eventually will be a disarmer.
Ammo bans would be as illegal as a gun ban. It is protected by the constution too.
Heavy Metal
04-16-09, 21:57
That sounds about right... Either that or put a huuuge tax on them so that most people will just choose not or won't be able to buy.
You realize the President can't tax jack don't you?
Why would a congresscritter who fears losing his job to an AWB would not fear losing his job to an ammo ban or tax that would piss even more people off??
He'll go after ammo, which is not covered by the 2d Amendment.
That's what the British tried ... April 19, 1775. Didn't work out so well for them.
There is no way that a ban on ammunition would comport with Heller.
Has the Kenyan said anything that wasn't a complete, 100% pile of BS?
Why on earth would you believe his lying ass now?
You realize the President can't tax jack don't you?
Why would a congresscritter who fears losing his job to an AWB would not fear losing his job to an ammo ban or tax that would piss even more people off??
Yes, I understand that. But you realize that there is a tax on gas and cigarettes and other stuff, and those taxes can be raised to high levels to detour buying those things, right?
Who fears losing their job?
Yes, I understand that. But you realize that there is a tax on gas and cigarettes and other stuff, and those taxes can be raised to high levels to detour buying those things, right?
Who fears losing their job?
Yes that is true. But those taxes are passed by congress not the president. And for the most part those are popular taxes that are favorite targets during times of economic slow downs.
Ammunition taxes are not &, to the best of my knowledge and my congressional delegation, have never been seriously brought up in recent memory. Nor would they be anymore supported then a AWB.
Frankly, as gun enthusiasts I think we are starting to sound a little paranoid to the general public. The reality is this white house does not have the political capital nor want to take on AWB legislation because they know they will lose. They do not have the votes.
And that is politically damaging to any president, especially one with an agenda as big as this president. Might I remind you that Bush & McCain would have signed a AWB.
This is won or lost in the congress.
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-17-09, 01:59
Yep. "Lying DEMOCRAPS" have been KNOWN to 'happen'... :mad:
cause the 'Pubs always tell the truth? :confused: They are all liars and bums.
Im not sure if we heard it on the same program but what I heard on Beck was that it wasnt off the table permanently, just for the meantime, to make way for his healthcare amendments and what not.
THe topic came up when the president of MExico asked him to reinstate the ban to lessen the flow of weapons to Mexico.
Let's be clear about this. Barry won't ban anything. But, as soon as the Democrats think they have enough votes or they come up with "compromise" legislation that they and the Republicans can foist upon us, they will do it. We have already heard from Nancy and Dianne and don't think for a minute that they have no influence.
As soon as a bill reaches his desk, he will sign it, make no mistake about it. His previous position and record speaks for itself.
:o Just heard on Fox News....OBAMA has announced he will NOT ban "assault weapons"....
Maybe somebody actually told him that "assault weapons" are used in maybe 1% of murders...and, oh by the way, something like 30% of murders are committed without ANY firearms at all!
Oh, please let the panic buying stop...(maybe then I'll be able to get my hands on a BCM upper) :D
You really believe the words coming out of a commie lib's mouth? Are you really that naive?
Well someone better tell that to the guys who update the White House web site that the President has changed his mind.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
He just doesn't have the time to fight this one, with so much else going on, and he would also appreciate if Americans STOPPED buying firearms. It is gonna make his job more difficult later.
EzGoingKev
04-17-09, 06:17
President Obama is going to have other people do all all the scut work to get support for the ban going. Once their is enough support he will be able to say that he didn't push it, other people did.
Its like when Don Corleone promises that HE won't take revenge on anyone for killing Sonny. Michael did it instead.
the_1iviper
04-17-09, 07:35
cnbc had an interview with gov. rendell from pa. on this morning,most of which was talk about an AWB.not very encouraging.every time his mouth opened and said something about assault weapons all i heard was blah,blah,blah.
he did bring up the pittburgh and oakland shootings several times.and mentioned an ak as the weapon that killed at least one of the pittsburgh officers but never mentioned "ar" in the interview.
he did mention over and over and over how assault weapons "jam" and are "unreliable".i wanted to call in and ask him why we issue such unreliable weapons that do nothing but jam to our military and law enforcement.
when the 2nd was brought up he started categorizing surface to air missle's and assault rifle's as the "same":rolleyes:
sorry PA but what a blow hard.
"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals," then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign stated. "Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen."
:rolleyes:
You all might want to read this:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html
Then re-read the Constitution.
Obongo doesn't have to do anything. He already has.
RogerinTPA
04-17-09, 09:26
That sounds about right... Either that or put a huuuge tax on them so that most people will just choose not or won't be able to buy.
Legislation for a "sin tax" for alcohol and cigs. many states and cities have enacted, is already here, as well as the recent federal tobacco tax hike. Some legislators have considered food tax on unhealthy food and sodas. An ammo tax would be the most expedient way to go after it and there would be nothing that we could do about it.
Carne Frio
04-17-09, 09:43
I heard that "obama" is a Kenyan word meaning L I A R. :D
I never really thought they'd push for anything this year anyway. Although I am pleased we received somewhat a stay of execution, we're certainly not off the hook. There are PLENTY of other ways they can screw with gun owners without banning a damn thing.
HiggsBoson
04-17-09, 11:42
You all might want to read this:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html
Then re-read the Constitution.
I'll bite. You were pretty vague in your statement, and I prefer to see actual evidence before I get out my pitchfork and light my torch. So I did some research.
I've read both "The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials" (aka CIFTA) as well as the US Constitution quite recently.
The OAS Convention was originally signed by Clinton in 1997, so laying entirely at Obama's feet is disingenuous. He was still in the Illinois State Senate at the time, hardly in a position to effect international policy.
According to the Dept. of State (http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2009/110097.htm): "On June 9, 1998, the Convention was submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification." It still hasn't been ratified. In Article II [section 2], the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to ratify treaties negotiated by the President with foreign nations before they can take effect.
I must be missing something. What part of the Constitution are you saying gives the President (any President) the authority to sign binding treaties? The Obama administration does have the authority to change Executive Branch policies to more closely align with the terms of the convention. Is that what you mean? He can't just change Federal laws, so their policies will only get them so far. Other than that, he has no real powers with regard to this issue. What he can do is have his Chief of Staff go down to the Hill and beg the Senate to ratify CIFTA. The Senate, being Democratically controlled, could possibly choose to ratify this treaty as quietly as possible in order to avoid another gun control kerfuffle. I agree that that would be bad, but it brings us back to whether Congress is willing to go down that road.
Army Chief
04-17-09, 12:23
A responsible discussion of this issue just doesn't seem to be possible without resorting to name calling and denigration of government officials, does it? Sad.
This is not the way to be taken seriously at a time when things could not be any more serious. I'm sorry if that is construed as whizzing in anyone's Wheaties, but we didn't particularly care for the way that President Bush was crudely slandered by the Left when he was in office -- how is this really any different now?
There is surely cause for concern, but we stand to gain nothing with this kind of banter. If we wish to be heard, we must learn to do better, gentlemen.
Issues ... not insults.
AC
I guess I should start with, "Begging the King's pardon...." :rolleyes:
The Brady bunch made mistakes during the last ban and learned from them. There is one key issue they need to address before any ban. Registration. They need to know what we have and were it is before they enact the ban.
Banning them before registration will let too many slip through the cracks and end up in PVC tubes and they do not want that.
Great Britain, Australia, California, etc., all started with "harmless" registration with unkept promises. I fear the antis will follow the Brady plan and start with registration.
:o Just heard on Fox News....OBAMA has announced he will NOT ban "assault weapons"....
Maybe somebody actually told him that "assault weapons" are used in maybe 1% of murders...and, oh by the way, something like 30% of murders are committed without ANY firearms at all!
Oh, please let the panic buying stop...(maybe then I'll be able to get my hands on a BCM upper) :D
Is this a joke post?
Seriously?
Obama, the congressional democrats, etc. have been going on about a ban for years now. Periodically they deny it, including removing it from their websites, etc. A week or two later, it goes back up.
They're simply doing this as a distraction - there are MILLIONS of people who seem to be unaware of the last dozen times they pulled this stunt. They seem to repeat it more often now, about once every 2 or 3 weeks.
This matches Obama's behavior on most of the other issues as well. They view the general population as rubes to be manipulated.
WAKE THE HELL UP
Furthermore, this whole nonsense about "oh, we taught them a lesson in 94" doesn't count for near as much as you think it does. Their new MO is ramming things through before they've been read; they don't need to go around shopping for votes, they only have to deal with the results... and with their drastic expansion of the welfare state and pending census shenannigans, they're not going to have to worry as much about that, either.
boondocksaint
04-17-09, 18:02
Is this a joke post?
WAKE THE HELL UP
Boltcatch....calm down...try decalf
Boltcatch....calm down...try decalf
I am absolutely sick and ****ing tired of hearing "OH, hooray, now there won't be a ban because Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Holder/Santa Claus said so!' This has happened roughly every 3-4 weeks for the last few months, until the cycle resets due to some administration lackey running their mouth.
I'm even more tired of lefty trolls registering on gun boards to say the same thing. The sad part is it's getting hard to tell the difference between those who are trolls and those are just gullible.
They pull shit this regularly and backtrack the next week. It means nothing. Mark my words, barring a sudden an unexpected failed reelection bid or new (and favorable) SCOTUS rulings, a new ban will come up for a vote during his time in office.
Heavy Metal
04-17-09, 18:36
The simple reason there won't be a ban anytime soon is they don't have the votes and they(the blue dog Dems in congress) want to ge re-elected.
But keey on hyping everything and encouraging a defacto-ban thru shortages and high prices if it makes you feel better.
Keep wearing out our peoples resolve by crying wolf so we are unprepared if a real moment should come if it makes you feel better.
boondocksaint
04-17-09, 18:37
I'm even more tired of lefty trolls registering on gun boards to say the same thing. The sad part is it's getting hard to tell the difference between those who are trolls and those are just gullible.
Hey boltcatch...since you didn't take the original post in the manner intended....YES, the comment about OBAMI-Nation was made with feigned enthusiasm [read sarcasm].
The stats about murder rates is accurate, that part of the post was true.
Also, my interest in acquiring a BCM barreled upper is also VERY true...no luck with the e-mail alerts though.
BTW, I am a Marine and a LEO. So, for your own reassurance, I couldn't be further from a "lefty troll".
Have a good weekend.
This is won or lost in the congress.
Exactly. And that's what makes that wombat Pelosi even more disconcerting.:( I think she's much more likely to spearhead anti-gun legislation than the President.
And then, when he approves it, it will simply be "the will of the people, as voiced by their elected Representatives."
If anyone hasn't done so already... join the N.R.A.
SWATcop556
04-17-09, 22:51
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm still stocking up on EBR parts and kit.
This wouldn't be the first thing that Obama has said to the national press that was complete bullshit.
Army Chief
04-18-09, 02:06
... when he approves it, it will simply be "the will of the people, as voiced by their elected Representatives."
I think this is, to me, the most frightening part of this entire discussion. We expect a certain amount of pandering and opportunism from our elected officials, because part of "the game" here is to remain viable to a wide-enough cross section of people to stay in office (read: get re-elected). No surprises there.
What we don't really expect is the moment in time when such restrictive legislation truly IS reflective of the will of the people -- not all of the people, obviously, but enough of them to make such things politically-viable. This is why I find it counterproductive to resort to name calling where our public officials are concerned: they are merely a reflection of where we're at as a society.
The real problem is that the average citizen in the United States no longer has much of a connection to firearms or the Second Amendment -- this has become "somebody else's issue" to most of them. Most people read about proposed AWBs and think "well, what's the big deal with that? Who needs those kinds of weapons, anyway?" Think about it: even if you're military or LEO, how many of the people that you work with are serious shooters? How many share your positions on Black Guns? How many of your neighbors, fellow churchgoers or social connections would probably support AWB legislation simply because they don't know any better?
My point is that this battle is likely being lost in the trenches -- not in Washington. We can, and should, make our positions clear to our elected officials, but we should also be out there explaining this to the people we share hunting grounds and public ranges with. We should learn to present a rational case to our friends and neighbors. We should have an answer ready for those who know only the side of the issue that they got from 20/20 or 60 Minutes. If we don't, or if we simply allow ourselves to become reactionary and enraged, we're going to end up a lonely -- if vocal -- minority with little hope of being taken seriously in Washington when the storm clouds form.
Your Senator or Congressman will do whatever he feels will preserve his long-term political capital. The real question is, what will your friends, neighbors and fellow sportsmen do when their opinions are polled, and how effectively are we reaching them?
AC
This thread is still open? :eek:
A responsible discussion of this issue just doesn't seem to be possible without resorting to name calling and denigration of government officials, does it? Sad.
This is not the way to be taken seriously at a time when things could not be any more serious. I'm sorry if that is construed as whizzing in anyone's Wheaties, but we didn't particularly care for the way that President Bush was crudely slandered by the Left when he was in office -- how is this really any different now?
There is surely cause for concern, but we stand to gain nothing with this kind of banter. If we wish to be heard, we must learn to do better, gentlemen.
Issues ... not insults.
AC
Agreed, calling the duly elected President of the United States names and making insinuations about his background is not the way to build support for OUR cause.
It makes us look bad and is not respectful, yeah SOME leftists denigrated Bush, but I thought we were better then them right?
SecretAgentMan
04-18-09, 10:48
As much as I hate to say it, I think the fate of a new Assault Weapon Ban is in the hands of Harry Reid. He voted against the first ban and has said that he does not support a new one. What's impossible to know, however, is whether Reid's stance is based on principle or populism/survivalism. If it is the latter, then we can expect Reid to reverse his stance as soon as the winds change.
Pelosi and Obama both want to see a new ban passed. Pelosi might have some difficulty getting it through Congress, but I think the real obstacle is Harry Reid and the Senate.
Here's a suggestion:
Do a little research , start with Congress for the last couple of years: NRA grades , bills introduced , co-sponsor numbers and actual vote numbers. Check out the Heller case , especially the Amicus briefs and where/who they came from. Take a look at the CCW in National Park issue, who asked for the change? How many ? Look at the the 30 year history of CCW reform in the US. How many "shall issue' CCW laws have been repealed?
You might be surprised.
None of that is about ego or who knows more , it's about what's really been going on.
Who is winning ? The gun-grabbers or the mainstream gun rights movement?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.