Obama, Guns, and the Big Wide World

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

He's doing fine - he's recovering from cancer surgery. The surgery went well, and now he's just got to get through the next week or two of recovery.

Thanks for your well-wishes.

 

[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?

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.

No. I'm not comparing apples and orangs. I'm illustrating, I believe, a pattern that at least some of us believe has developed as a M.O. of this Administration. A pattern of doing one thing while selling something else to appease the people.

But I'm hoping you are right and this time it is much ado about nothing. I really do.

I wish I could be a bit more hopeful than I am though.

 

[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.

No. I'm not comparing apples and orangs. I'm illustrating, I believe, a pattern that at least some of us believe has developed as a M.O. of this Administration. A pattern of doing one thing while selling something else to appease the people.

For instance?

But I'm hoping you are right and this time it is much ado about nothing. I really do.

I wish I could be a bit more hopeful than I am though.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

He's doing fine - he's recovering from cancer surgery. The surgery went well, and now he's just got to get through the next week or two of recovery.

Thanks for your well-wishes.

Best possible vibes for full success there. We're dealing with that in our family too and so far so good, but it isn't any fun for sure. But they can do wonderful things now and cancer isn't so scary as it used to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No. I'm not comparing apples and orangs. I'm illustrating, I believe, a pattern that at least some of us believe has developed as a M.O. of this Administration. A pattern of doing one thing while selling something else to appease the people.

For instance?

But I'm hoping you are right and this time it is much ado about nothing. I really do.

I wish I could be a bit more hopeful than I am though.

For instance TARP which was intended to be a temporary loan and has now been converted into a giant petty cash fund.

For instance talking about eliminating unnecessary government agencies and positions and saving the tax payers' money while swelling government jobs by unparalleled proportions.

For instance stating that the government would not nationalize any industries while giving the government controlling interest in General Motors.

Like telling us how much we would save money with the healthcare legislation but omitting all the parts where we won't.

For instance pledging to raise no middle class taxes and pointing to a pittance of relief in payroll checks as significant while plans (including Cap & Trade) are in the works to raise everybody's taxes.

As bad as it is, I think it all would have been slightly more palatable if we were just told up front what was coming instead of being played for the ignorant fools they seem to believe we are.

 

[MaggieMae]

No.

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?

Discuss on that basis alone if you like.

But if you want some background that triggered the question, read on:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It is still under the media radar, but another round of gun control debates is likely looming. Most don’t think it will come up this year with so many other controversial issues on the table. But some think they may bury legislation in some other big bill where it is unlikely to attract much attention. The legislation would move the USA toward more cooperation with international gun ban initiatives.

On the campaign trail, President Obama repeatedly said he respected the 2nd Amendment and affirmed the right of citizens to hunt and defend themselves, etc. But then there was that infamous phrase about folks clinging to their Bibles and guns, and his voting record is not seen as friendly to private gun ownership.

And he wrote this:

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

President Obama’s stated positions on gun control:

• Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
• Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
• FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
• April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
• Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
• Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
• Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
• Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
• Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
• Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
• Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Barack Obama on the Issues

In an April advertisement, USA Carry published this:

. . . .The United Nations has for years had a stealthy, insidious agenda to disarm the law-abiding civilians of this world. Organizations like IANSA, partly funded by Unicef and left-wing liberals like billionaire George Soros, are helping lead the charge to disarm this country through efforts to effect International Law at the level of the United Nations that could trump our sovereign Constitution and the Second Amendment. . . .
UNited Nations, IANSA and International Gun Control

They featured the following Youtube presentation on their website:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU]YouTube - NRA News: UN Doomsday Treaty With Ginny Simone[/ame]

Re the Rebecca Peters cited in the video:

Rebecca Peters is the Director[1] of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). funded by George Soros. As chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Peters played a key role in the introduction of stricter gun control and gun confiscation, in Australia, an area in which she remains active today.

The Umut Foundation says: (She) was “Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control, which campaigned to tighten Australia's gun laws in the 1990s. Her research and advocacy helped bring about sweeping changes, including uniform gun laws across the eight states, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year-long buyback that destroyed nearly 700,000 weapons. Among the awards she received was the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal, her country's highest human rights honor.”
Prior to her work with IANSA, Peters worked for the Open Society Institute, a private foundation funded by George Soros. . . .

. . . .She has been criticised by the National Rifle Association in the United States, which believes that Rebecca Peters, along with the United Nations, wishes to "strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection" via gun-ownership by "banning civilian ownership of firearms". . . .
Rebecca Peters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a link to IANSA’s website:
IANSA the international voice against gun violence

.......

 

[Dr Gregg]

Doesn't matter what he would support, constitution protects that right. So stop with the slippery slope nonsense and "he's going to take our guns" nonsense.

\Gun control is not taking away people's guns.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No. I'm not comparing apples and orangs. I'm illustrating, I believe, a pattern that at least some of us believe has developed as a M.O. of this Administration. A pattern of doing one thing while selling something else to appease the people.

For instance?

But I'm hoping you are right and this time it is much ado about nothing. I really do.

I wish I could be a bit more hopeful than I am though.

For instance TARP which was intended to be a temporary loan and has now been converted into a giant petty cash fund.

I don't see how you can blame Obama for how the Banks spent the TARP money. Aside from that, I don't really know what you're referring to.

For instance talking about eliminating unnecessary government agencies and positions and saving the tax payers' money while swelling government jobs by unparalleled proportions.

Link?

For instance stating that the government would not nationalize any industries while giving the government controlling interest in General Motors.

I don't agree that bailing out a company is equal to nationalizing it. But this is technically correct, I guess.

Like telling us how much we would save money with the healthcare legislation but omitting all the parts where we won't.

That's politics. This is nothing new.

For instance pledging to raise no middle class taxes and pointing to a pittance of relief in payroll checks as significant while plans (including Cap & Trade) are in the works to raise everybody's taxes.

Speculation on future legislation isn't part of this debate.

As bad as it is, I think it all would have been slightly more palatable if we were just told up front what was coming instead of being played for the ignorant fools they seem to believe we are.

I don't think it's so bad. Neither do millions of other people. You don't like what Obama is doing - I get that. I don't really either. But that doesn't mean that he's doing anything "unprecedented". To me, every President ever has done things that I don't agree with. Every President has lied, and made campaign promises that they didn't keep. Obama has done this no more or less than any other President in modern history.

 

[xsited1]

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.

I just came across this post and almost spit out my coffee.

Only a true-blue Socialist would say this. I always figured you were a socialist. I don't have a problem with socialists, except for the ones who want to turn the US into a socialist State.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance?

For instance TARP which was intended to be a temporary loan and has now been converted into a giant petty cash fund.

I don't see how you can blame Obama for how the Banks spent the TARP money. Aside from that, I don't really know what you're referring to.


Link?


I don't agree that bailing out a company is equal to nationalizing it. But this is technically correct, I guess.


That's politics. This is nothing new.

For instance pledging to raise no middle class taxes and pointing to a pittance of relief in payroll checks as significant while plans (including Cap & Trade) are in the works to raise everybody's taxes.

Speculation on future legislation isn't part of this debate.

As bad as it is, I think it all would have been slightly more palatable if we were just told up front what was coming instead of being played for the ignorant fools they seem to believe we are.

I don't think it's so bad. Neither do millions of other people. You don't like what Obama is doing - I get that. I don't really either. But that doesn't mean that he's doing anything "unprecedented". To me, every President ever has done things that I don't agree with. Every President has lied, and made campaign promises that they didn't keep. Obama has done this no more or less than any other President in modern history.

Please appreciate that I have no interest in getting into a nitpicking session on the issues I provided for examples, but there are threads for every single one of them on USMB, and if you think I'm all wet on any of them and it's important to you, then prove that I don't have a clue about what I'm saying.

And of course Obama disciples don't think it's so bad. At least those who haven't yet experienced how bad it is first hand.

And yes, no President has ever fully lived up to his advertising. While I believe him to be one of the more personally honest Presidents we've had in my lifetime--in this context being wrong is not the same thing as being dishonest--President Bush certainly disappointed me a lot. And I did defend him on some issues and later determined my faith was misplaced.

But I have NEVER in my lifetime had a president who seemed so gungho to do so much damage that will have such long lasting if not permanent consequences as this President. And I no longer believe I am exaggerating for emphasis.

Or at least not much.

EDIT: So back on topic: i do think Obama will go after the guns if he thinks he can get away with it.