Does Obama intend to ban firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dark Skies

Dark Skies

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
508
Location
Oxfordshire England
Scanning a lot of the threads I read that people believe he is likely to ban firearms - and is the cause of the recent buying and stockpiling frenzy that is trickling down to the UK regarding reloading components.

So keeping politics out of it - which wouldn't make much impression on me anyway because I wouldn't know the finer points between a Democrat and a Republican anyway ...

I've just seen this YouTube interview and to me he seems to be perfectly rational in wanting to be able to crack down on illegal firearms whilst allowing the law abiding owners to carry on as usual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE

Now, coming as I do from a country that really is sliding into a socialist and gun-loathing Orwellian nightmare Obama actually sounds quite reasonable regarding measures to combat firearm crime. Am I missing something? Doesn't it make sense to you guys to put in place measures that will take street guns out of punks hands?

Incidentally - Eric Blair aka George Orwell is buried in a churchyard only a few miles from my home. For many years there was a small industrial park on the other side of the graveyard wall. Until it was knocked down there was a CCTV camera mounted on the business premises wall pointing at Orwell's grave. Now THAT'S irony.
 
Everything is relative, my son. :D

Obama has proven repeatedly that he will say for publication whatever jerks the VOTERS chain. What he then does is whatever HE wants in his vision for his new socialist state.

Pops
 
Any firearm regulation (including what is on the books) is unconstitutional. Right now there are citizens=people who can no longer own a gun.

This suggests that citizens who are not allowed to own a gun are not citizens.
 
Mr. Obama has supported legislation that would outright ban all handguns and semi-automatics in the past. Now that he's president, I don't imagine that he's changed his stripes, only his rhetoric. He's proven that he'll say whatever sounds good and tests well in focus groups. Frankly we don't trust him to keep his word on guns. We've been burned before.
 
Now, coming as I do from a country that really is sliding into a socialist and gun-loathing Orwellian nightmare Obama actually sounds quite reasonable regarding measures to combat firearm crime. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are missing something. Just examine the history of how your country ended up where it is vis-a-vis "reasonable" restrictions. Your government took small and consistent bites at your rights slowly and steadily over time. It was an endless progression that never stopped. The "opposition" in America has a sworn goal of eradicating the populace's right to defend itself, both from crime and from tyrannical government. The gun-rights advocates know this, and are adamant about letting the chain of restrictions start and continue down the slippery slope to confiscation.

Another fundamental problem is that we have a Constitution that flatly states that individual people have the right to keep and bear arms and the federal government can not abridge that. Those who plan on abridging it in any way show a profound disrespect and indifference to our very basic social contract that we have drawn up. If they are willing to ignore that civil liberty and right, what others will they tear up when convenient?

We do NOT have a governmental contract like yours - where power derives historically from the crown and has devolved into a majority rule. Our contract is that the people retain sole power and our contract stipulates specific civil rights regardless of majority whims. When powerful people try to subvert that, the thoughtful folks get very defensive.

I am an Ivy-educated, graduate-degree, east-coast urban professional, and historically very liberal. Today I went and bought a high-capacity "assault rifle"* so if it comes to it, I can defend my government against those trying to tear it down.

* - not really an assault rifle, but what the media calls it to scare people. It's a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle. In the mainstream media, that is called an "assault rifle" for some unknown reason.
 
NED KELLY: Any firearm regulation (including what is on the books) is unconstitutional. Right now there are citizens=people who can no longer own a gun.
This suggests that citizens who are not allowed to own a gun are not citizens.

Taken at face value that sounds a valid point. However, is that really anything new? Surely there has always been, in the USA, people that have for good reason been denied access to firearms. Criminals have willfully placed themselves at odds with society and proven themselves unfit to be trusted with firearms. Also, for the sake of common sense, the mentally ill cannot be trusted with firearms because they are incapable of the responsibility that goes with ownership.
 
I'm a semi-automatic and pump-action shotgun in the U.K. If I lived in the USA I wouldnt be allowed to own a gun, according to people on here.

Different places, different rediculous laws ....
 
obama is the figgure head, and the real powers, peloski and reed have said no to any new gun laws.
 
Bugger! DeepSouth nipped my thread right in the bud. That IS disconcerting stuff.

Throdgrain raises an interesting point. When (and it really is more of a when rather than an if) I migrate to the States (my wife is from Ohio) would I be allowed to buy a firearm as a mere resident or will I need to become a citizen first?
 
"Taken at face value that sounds a valid point. However, is that really anything new? Surely there has always been, in the USA, people that have for good reason been denied access to firearms. Criminals have willfully placed themselves at odds with society and proven themselves unfit to be trusted with firearms. Also, for the sake of common sense, the mentally ill cannot be trusted with firearms because they are incapable of the responsibility that goes with ownership."

Never served a day in jail in my life nor am I an x-con.

If a man commits a crime and does his time. He has as much right to protect his home and family as anyone else. Unless he is not human. As all have the god given right to life.

If a person is unstable mentally than they need to be in a mental hospital. If the mental hospital says they are stable and they release them. That person should be allowed to own a gun.

What you do not understand is that these two angles in gun laws are at the point now (since the passage of the notorious veterans disarmament act, endorsed by the NRA) that I wouldnt be surprised if about half of Americans would not be allowed to own a gun.

The criteria can continually be adjusted until only an elite will have the "privelage" to own guns.

I am also opposed to gun free zones. gun free zones deny a person the right to protect his life while in those areas.
 
Criminals have willfully placed themselves at odds with society and proven themselves unfit to be trusted with firearms. Also, for the sake of common sense, the mentally ill cannot be trusted with firearms because they are incapable of the responsibility that goes with ownership.
Click to expand...

Than they shouldn't be on the streets. If they can't be citizens of a peaceful society, then they shouldn't be. There are many options that don't violate everybody for the sake of the few including deportation, termination, jailing, seclusion, etc. If/when they are released from whatever form of captivity they are deemed responsible enough to be free, than they should be. Right now in this country if you perform ANY felony, you cannot own a firearm, even if that felony was doing a burnout (defacing of government property).

Damian
 
As far as I understand things, there has never been any correlation in the US between increased gun restrictions (e.g. the 1994 AWB, the 1968 GCA) and reduction in violent crime.

So why again do any additional restrictions sound reasonable?

to me he seems to be perfectly rational in wanting to be able to crack down on illegal firearms whilst allowing the law abiding owners to carry on as usual
Click to expand...
The concern is that the framework is being laid to declare more and more firearms to me 'illegal'.

Once you convince folks that banning an object will make them safer, it's hard to stop that ball from rolling further even when there is empirical data that banning the object made no objective difference in public safety.
 
I've just seen this YouTube interview and to me he seems to be perfectly rational in wanting to be able to crack down on illegal firearms whilst allowing the law abiding owners to carry on as usual.
Click to expand...
Swell, until all firearms become "illegal."
 
Australia, England, Canada. We already know what type of country we will become if the brady bunch and Obama-Khan have their way.
 
Any firearm regulation (including what is on the books) is unconstitutional.

True, but my fear is that our government will ban or tax ammunition by 500% or more. That is not covered in our constitution.

It's good to hear from our brothers in the UK!
 
Hmmm. You're all making very valid points. I guess that smoothe talking Obama played me for a sucker. Bloody politicians.

So, to repeat my earlier question ...

Throdgrain raises an interesting point. When (and it really is more of a when rather than an if) I migrate to the States (my wife is from Ohio) would I be allowed to buy a firearm as a mere resident or will I need to become a citizen first?
 
Ammunition could be argued as being a weapon in itself. It can definetly be used as an improvised weapon if the primer can be detonated and the cartridge fixed in a position so it cannot move backwards.

Ammo to a gun could be compared ......

to the 30mm gatling gun to the A10.

Ammunition could be argued and defined as a weapon that another weapon is built around to fire it.
 
rbernie:
So why again do any additional restrictions sound reasonable?
Click to expand...

Well, if all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails, as the old adage goes. If you are a lawmaker, pretty much all you can do is make more laws--even in the logically absurd case where you are really doing is making illegal acts more illegal.

Now, if we could find a way to get the legislators to stop attempting to usurp executive powers for their own aggrandizement . . .

And, in a tiny note of fairness, I'm not sure BHO wants to appoint kommisariat to run our lives for us--I'm just thinking he just does not understand things not run out of Dealy Plaza . . .
 
Barak Obama ,like all elected officials, is a political prostitue. He will do what the big money that put him in office tells him to do.
 
Back to the original question. Yes, Obama has a long history of voting for very strict gun control. He has supported banning all semi automatic firearms. The Ruger 22 rifle I bought my son when he turned twelve is a semi automatic firearm. Obama's gun ban agenda goes way beyond so called assualt weapons. His idea of "common sense regulation" are quite different from mine.

The only thing stopping him, for now, is the other Democrats in power in Congress who want to maintain their current power hold. Gun control has cost them votes and power in the past and it is not high enough on their current priority list to risk losing any of the power they currently enjoy. Madame Pelosi showed us that with her recent spanking of AG Holder for his comments on bringing back the AWB. Many other Democrats joined her.

Do not forget, however, that tomorrow is another day and they will bring gun control and gun bans back to their agenda when they feel safe to do so. Obama will do it on his own in his second term with or without Congressional support.
 
Last edited:
When (and it really is more of a when rather than an if) I migrate to the States (my wife is from Ohio) would I be allowed to buy a firearm as a mere resident or will I need to become a citizen first?
Click to expand...

Yes, no problem. The purchases are based on residency, not citizenship. You provide your alien reg. number or other visa number and your state ID (have to be a resident 90 days) on the form 4473 if buying from a delaer. If buying privately, only rules are that you be a resident of the state in which you do the transaction and not be "banned" from owning (as well as of legal age, of course). I do not believe Ohio has any other requirements (those are the federal ones).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Obama's record on firearms triggers run on sales in state
Replies
0
Views
396
PILMAN
P
2
  • Locked
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban - A Public Opinion Nightmare
Replies
0
Views
688
2dogs
2
W
  • Locked
Essay on Project Safe Neighborhoods
Replies
3
Views
652
whm1974
W
G
  • Locked
Thoughts on a complete rewrite...
2 3
Replies
73
Views
9K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top