Obama, Guns, and the Big Wide World

[Foxfyre]

Ummm, I don't recall suggesting in the OP that anybody was coming to take our guns.

The thesis is:
In a nutshell, the question for this thread is: Is President Obama likely or not likely to support an international initiative to ban many or most privately owned American guns?

I probably should have left the "American guns" out of it and it might have been easier to understand. The point is that we can be sure that those supporting the international effort do have an eye on American guns.

So given the President's affinity for joining the world on all sorts of stuff, will he be in there promoting the international gun initiative too?

So, this thread is not about Obama coming to take your guns, it's about Obama supporting international efforts to come and take your guns?

I'm not really sure I see the difference. And my answer remains the same either way:

Obama is not trying to take away your guns. Period.

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ummm, I don't recall suggesting in the OP that anybody was coming to take our guns.

The thesis is:
In a nutshell, the question for this thread is: Is President Obama likely or not likely to support an international initiative to ban many or most privately owned American guns?

I probably should have left the "American guns" out of it and it might have been easier to understand. The point is that we can be sure that those supporting the international effort do have an eye on American guns.

So given the President's affinity for joining the world on all sorts of stuff, will he be in there promoting the international gun initiative too?

So, this thread is not about Obama coming to take your guns, it's about Obama supporting international efforts to come and take your guns?

I'm not really sure I see the difference. And my answer remains the same either way:

Obama is not trying to take away your guns. Period.

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

 

[The T]

Ummm, I don't recall suggesting in the OP that anybody was coming to take our guns.

The thesis is:
In a nutshell, the question for this thread is: Is President Obama likely or not likely to support an international initiative to ban many or most privately owned American guns?

I probably should have left the "American guns" out of it and it might have been easier to understand. The point is that we can be sure that those supporting the international effort do have an eye on American guns.

So given the President's affinity for joining the world on all sorts of stuff, will he be in there promoting the international gun initiative too?

So, this thread is not about Obama coming to take your guns, it's about Obama supporting international efforts to come and take your guns?

I'm not really sure I see the difference. And my answer remains the same either way:

Obama is not trying to take away your guns. Period.

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

They still don't get it do they?

 

[Modbert]

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

I would say bullshit more than rhetoric. Rhetoric is suppose to make sense.

 

[Flopper]

Obama is probably the most anti-gun president we've had.
That said, the will is not there in the country for more gun control. The Democrats recognize it as a losing issue, which is why you never hear someone push it in campaigns.
I seriously doubt he will try to push an anti gun agenda. Strangely he has signed more pro-gun legislation in 1 year than Bush did in 8.

Like I said previously, Obama is not as Liberal as people think.

Obama has lost a lot of credibility with the left for not being liberal enough. So far he is not been afraid to take on controversial issues, but I can't see him taking on the gun lobby now. I think it would lose votes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

I would say bullshit more than rhetoric. Rhetoric is suppose to make sense.

Ya cause Obama did not spend the first 9 months of his Presidency APOLOGIZING to everyone.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

I would say bullshit more than rhetoric. Rhetoric is suppose to make sense.

Rhetoric is just bullshit that has an ounce of truth to it. Or rather, nothing provably false in it.

This is just another fearmongering/NRA fundraising ploy.

 

[Modbert]

Ya cause Obama did not spend the first 9 months of his Presidency APOLOGIZING to everyone.

Where did he say sorry? I think recognizing the fact that America has made mistakes in the past when they have is the right thing to do. This supreme arrogant behavior that some people think we should have is horrifying.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

I would say bullshit more than rhetoric. Rhetoric is suppose to make sense.

Ya cause Obama did not spend the first 9 months of his Presidency APOLOGIZING to everyone.

He didn't. Name someone he "apologized" to.

Not to mention, what the fuck does that have to do with what we're talking about?

 

[Foxfyre]

So, this thread is not about Obama coming to take your guns, it's about Obama supporting international efforts to come and take your guns?

I'm not really sure I see the difference. And my answer remains the same either way:

Obama is not trying to take away your guns. Period.

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

Please join us on the Cap & Trade thread and I'm sure that will be discussed. I'm prefer not to transfer that discussion here. Thank you for understanding.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

Please join us on the Cap & Trade thread and I'm sure that will be discussed. I'm prefer not to transfer that discussion here. Thank you for understanding.

I appreciate the invitation, but I'll have to pass, I'm running late to visit my brother in the hospital.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

Please join us on the Cap & Trade thread and I'm sure that will be discussed. I'm prefer not to transfer that discussion here. Thank you for understanding.

I appreciate the invitation, but I'll have to pass, I'm running late to visit my brother in the hospital.

Oh gosh. That's way more important that tossing ideas around here. Hope he's doing well and will be okay.

But please return to fight another time.

 

[Flopper]

So, this thread is not about Obama coming to take your guns, it's about Obama supporting international efforts to come and take your guns?

I'm not really sure I see the difference. And my answer remains the same either way:

Obama is not trying to take away your guns. Period.

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

They still don't get it do they?

The one world one government idea is a loser for the US. It's day will come, hopefully long after my time. Its one thing to adopt foreign banking initiatives, Cap and Trade, and European style healthcare and something entirely different to take away an individual rights to own guns which is constitution right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ummm, I don't recall suggesting in the OP that anybody was coming to take our guns.

The thesis is:
In a nutshell, the question for this thread is: Is President Obama likely or not likely to support an international initiative to ban many or most privately owned American guns?

I probably should have left the "American guns" out of it and it might have been easier to understand. The point is that we can be sure that those supporting the international effort do have an eye on American guns.

So given the President's affinity for joining the world on all sorts of stuff, will he be in there promoting the international gun initiative too?

He'd be setting himself up for impeachment. The Second Amendment is explicit. There's only one correct course to change it...and that's by the Amendment process. Any/Every other attempt is unlawful regardless where it comes from.

As we have discussed previously, I thinki it will be done incrementally, by gaining little concessions from the court as has been done with religion, freedom of the press, Kelo, et al, until such time as they have enough power and enough clout to go for a full scale amendment of the amendment. Meanwhile, I think they very well may try to use the international community to sway American public opinion.

But you're right. On this issue they really will have a fight on their hands.

 

[Foxfyre]

And now I have to go to my Uncle's birthday dinner, but I shall return.

 

[The T]

So, this thread is not about Obama coming to take your guns, it's about Obama supporting international efforts to come and take your guns?

I'm not really sure I see the difference. And my answer remains the same either way:

Obama is not trying to take away your guns. Period.

No difference? Hmmmm. Thinking about that.

The monstrous healthcare reform bill just passed was heavily promoted, among other things, by pointing to the examples of other nations in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America. Who would have thought such a thing possible before it happened just a few weeks ago?

Many current banking initiatives being debated or in the legislative process are being defended by holding up European or Chinese or Japanese models as if those should guide us. Even a world currency is being kicked around a bit. Who would have thought that we would arrive at a point that some Americans think our economy should be patterned after Europe or China?

Cap and Trade is being widely sold as necessary to an international effort to 'save the planet' and it would be irresponsible and selfish of the USA, the largest per capita consumer of energy, to not be a part of that. Just a short decade or so ago, who could have envisioned any President suggesting America should hand over any part of its sovereignty to international dictates?

So is it so far fetched that cooperation with the international initiatives on other things are out of the realm of probability? We start at the international level and slowly but surely reel the USA into the web?

Where do you see any President suggesting that we hand over any part of our "sovereignty"?

All of your examples are of rhetoric, not policy.

September 2009

For starters.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, on April 8, President Obama signed an arms-reduction treat with Russia and is pushing the Senate to ratify it quickly even before the final negotiations are completed. It would be like the healthcare legislation. Go ahead and pass it and we'll work out the details later. Obama is selling it as 'non binding' but, according to Jon Kyle and John McCain, among other things, it clearly and unambiguously prohibits the USA from placing defense interceptors in any existing missile launchers. And of course we won't be bulding any new missile launchers. In their opinion this is a flat out dismantling of an important part of our national security.

If the President is willing to do this, how much will he be reluctant to slowly, and incrementally, start tinkering with the gun laws to restrict more and more of them?

 

[boedicca]

Ummm, I don't recall suggesting in the OP that anybody was coming to take our guns.

The thesis is:
In a nutshell, the question for this thread is: Is President Obama likely or not likely to support an international initiative to ban many or most privately owned American guns?

I probably should have left the "American guns" out of it and it might have been easier to understand. The point is that we can be sure that those supporting the international effort do have an eye on American guns.

So given the President's affinity for joining the world on all sorts of stuff, will he be in there promoting the international gun initiative too?

If Obama actually cared about Public Opinion, I'd say no. Gun ownership is so widespread in this country. The analogy would be how Reagan did not use the power of the Presidency to make abortion illegal.

But that is only if he cares about Public Opinion. I no longer believe he does.

It's likely he would sign some non-binding ideological statement of an international cabal of thugs and bureaucrats.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Also, on April 8, President Obama signed an arms-reduction treat with Russia and is pushing the Senate to ratify it quickly even before the final negotiations are completed. It would be like the healthcare legislation. Go ahead and pass it and we'll work out the details later. Obama is selling it as 'non binding' but, according to Jon Kyle and John McCain, among other things, it clearly and unambiguously prohibits the USA from placing defense interceptors in any existing missile launchers. And of course we won't be bulding any new missile launchers. In their opinion this is a flat out dismantling of an important part of our national security.

If the President is willing to do this, how much will he be reluctant to slowly, and incrementally, start tinkering with the gun laws to restrict more and more of them?

You're comparing apples to elephants - I don't see a parallel between nuclear arms reduction and outlawing private gun ownership.

There is no parallel.

The fact of the matter is that this will always be a boogeyman issue, just like abortion. No President will ever push to get abortion outlawed. They'll scream about it, but they'll never actually do anything about it, because ending abortion would end that wedge issue.

Gun rights are the same.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ummm, I don't recall suggesting in the OP that anybody was coming to take our guns.

The thesis is:
In a nutshell, the question for this thread is: Is President Obama likely or not likely to support an international initiative to ban many or most privately owned American guns?

I probably should have left the "American guns" out of it and it might have been easier to understand. The point is that we can be sure that those supporting the international effort do have an eye on American guns.

So given the President's affinity for joining the world on all sorts of stuff, will he be in there promoting the international gun initiative too?

If Obama actually cared about Public Opinion, I'd say no. Gun ownership is so widespread in this country. The analogy would be how Reagan did not use the power of the Presidency to make abortion illegal.

But that is only if he cares about Public Opinion. I no longer believe he does.

It's likely he would sign some non-binding ideological statement of an international cabal of thugs and bureaucrats.

I'm curious why your capitalized "Public Opinion".

I'm also curious why you think he should care about "Public Opinion". Do you believe that the President should govern by polling? Isn't the whole point of a Republic that you elect someone who you think will do a good job - as opposed to a direct democracy in which you'd vote on every little issue?

I don't think that President's should govern by polling. I think that they've got 4 years to prove themselves, and I'll judge Obama's decisions in 3 more years. That's the only poll that matters.