RSS

Obama moves forward with first gun control measure hours after election

08 Nov
Obama moves forward with first gun control measure hours after election

That didn’t take too long.  Within hours of securing his second term as President, Obama moved forward to support renewing the debate over the UN Arms Trade Treaty.  By “renew debate” i mean that the only reason it had stalled in the first place was because Obama didn’t want to back it during an election year and now that the little hurdle of being re-elected has been cleared he doesn’t have to hedge his gun grabbing bets any more.

An official at the US mission says all the right things to the press:

“We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”

Now, they can say that but it doesn’t make it true.  The Arms Act as it stands does the following:

“The most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”

In short this is a gun registration that wouldn’t have to pass into law by both houses of Congress but is implemented by treaty.  A treaty that, while it would need a 2/3 majority in the Senate, could be accomplished by misdirection and out right lies to the people, who in turn could pressure enough on the fence Senators to foolishly vote for this treaty.

This act also allows for a foreign body, the United Nations, to control and dictate how US firearm manufacturers operate and as such runs the risk of crippling if not outright eliminating the industry in its entirety.

If there is no company to make new guns for private citizens then eventually citizens will run out of guns to buy. Another end around to eroding the Second Amendment.

In short, America would lose its own sovereignty with regards to how it handles its industry and civil rights.

When Barack Obama talks about “under the radar” THIS IS WHAT HE MEANS!

A number of people have kept telling me how good Obama was on the Second Amendment.  How we have National Park Carry now.  They ignored me when I told them that he had to sign it since it was an add on to a bill he needed to sign for his own credibility (Credit Card reform).  But now we see, and unfortunately we will continue to see for the next four years just how wrong you were.

The curtain has been pulled back and Obama has no fear of treading softly for re-election.  The attack began even before all the votes were counted.

Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more.

 
120 Comments

Posted by on November 8, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

120 responses to “Obama moves forward with first gun control measure hours after election

  1. john

    November 8, 2012 at 10:14 am

    i am a gun owner , i do hope your statements are accurate

     
    • billy heddins

      November 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Crap, I’m a gun owner, and I hope your statements are INACCURATE!!!!

       
      • Drawer22

        November 8, 2012 at 12:27 pm

        I’m a firearms owner, and I know and FEAR the Occupier of my White House is destroying the Constitution for which I hazarded my life in combat.

        De Oppresso Liber

         
  2. Michael Butler

    November 8, 2012 at 10:18 am

    We got what we deserved. The stupid vote belongs to Obama and there is no way to reach them because they will always remain uninformed. They are not interested in gathering real information and some of these stupid people are even hunters…..

     
    • mike grant

      November 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      Bad thing is, it will have no effect on the criminal element. None of them buy their weapons legitimately to start with.

       
      • wade

        November 8, 2012 at 3:37 pm

        “The joker” who shot up the movie theatre in Colorado purchased all his weapons legally. Don’t speculate too much when your statement is inaccurate.

         
      • Brother Beard

        November 8, 2012 at 4:04 pm

        @Wade You fail to understand that there are always exceptions. The vast majority (and the numbers aren’t even close) of violent criminals do not purchase firearms legally. It’s that whole pesky audit trail that would tie the gun to them that encourages them to find other means of acquiring the weapons. You might try looking at the full picture before deciding which statements are accurate or inaccurate.

         
      • Jerimiah Xander Miller

        November 8, 2012 at 5:45 pm

        I can tell you this much Wade, if I had been there or any other gun totin legal law abiding citizen that had their Concealed Weapon and permit, I am sure he would not have killed as many or any for that matter, because I would have put his sorry ass down, GLADLY!!

         
      • Jeffery Bston

        November 8, 2012 at 6:38 pm

        The joker that shot up the theater did not buy his guns legally he lied on the form where it ask if you is you are nutso

         
      • Jack Filion

        November 9, 2012 at 6:49 am

        He also had a history of mental illness which every one overlooked. So don’t comment on other people’s statements when yours are inaccurate.

         
      • 1ponderingmonkey

        November 9, 2012 at 11:37 am

        @wade- I know where mike is coming from.. Your right the “joker” did buy them legally, but the bigger point is statistically MOST gun related crimes are guns bought illegally. So basically yes mike it will have no effect on the current and daily gun crimes that continue to happen everyday.. It will only affect us legally armed American civilians..

         
      • D Deeds

        November 11, 2012 at 7:11 am

        When GUNS are OUTLAWED only OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS! These are TRUE words if you like them or not.

         
    • Ruth

      November 8, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      it really is sickening that people relected this anti American. They actually think he cares about them. Its a joke.

       
      • David P

        November 9, 2012 at 2:38 am

        SMH relecting?

         
      • jared farmington

        December 22, 2012 at 10:49 am

        Using his union HACKS, 0bama stole the election in the Swing States. Romney won almost all the non-Swing States. What does THAT tell you?

         
    • Jehanne

      November 8, 2012 at 5:53 pm

      Wade – The “Joker” purchased his guns legally before he was a criminal. If you start denying the legal purchase of firearms to people because of their *potential* to be a future criminal, then no one will get them legally ever again.

       
    • Ryan M

      November 9, 2012 at 8:57 am

      Some of these stupid people are even military…

       
    • Terry

      November 10, 2012 at 10:49 am

      Wrong again…….you are the “low information” voter. The rich Repugs lead you idiots around by your little bity guns. Do some real research – its your only hope. Educate, the stock market and gun makers always do best under Dems!

       
      • Tony Oliva

        November 10, 2012 at 10:56 am

        Low information voter…really Terry? Tell me, do you still blame Bush for a bad economy? I mean, Obama said 4 years were going to be enough for him to turn it all around. Apparently he lied. I wonder if he’ll still be blaming Bush in another 4 years.

        While gun makers do improve business under dems, it is hurtful to gun BUYERS because the constant threats of infringements drive up the price of guns and ammo.

        As for the Stock Market…that is just a ridiculous claim. Not saying that it will always plummet on a dems watch but to say that it always does best is ignorant. Jimmy Carter anyone?

         
      • D Deeds

        November 11, 2012 at 7:14 am

        Stock Market huh. Is that why the first two days after the election the market dropped over 400 points

         
  3. Igor Foggiatto

    November 8, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Government do that in brazil, with other restriction… now dealers have AK’s and good citzens with a very good luck a .380 ACP.

    (I’m Brazilian unfortunately)

     
    • Harold Hicks

      November 8, 2012 at 4:13 pm

      Igor, you are Brasileiro living in USA?

       
  4. Julie

    November 8, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Reblogged this on carlsonsblog.

     
  5. Rox

    November 8, 2012 at 11:10 am

    I work NICS doing ATF compliance at a gun shop. I live in Illinois, and Cook county. We have been slammed with business starting early morning yesterday. This is also a county where they are trying not only to mandate a 5cent tax on every bullet but a $25. tax on every firearm.

     
    • Harold Hicks

      November 8, 2012 at 4:16 pm

      gun owners…….you better start buying ammo with EVERY spare dollar you have……….won’t be long and we won’t be able to afford a box of .22’s

       
  6. Terry

    November 8, 2012 at 11:10 am

    The UN as a foreign body??? Correct me if I have my history wrong (i usually do) but didn’t an American President (FDR) have a major hand in creating this agency after ww2? Don’t get me wrong I don’t support the UN wholeheartedly, in fact i see it as a step toward a one world government.

     
    • Frank Dam

      November 8, 2012 at 11:59 am

      You’re right on all counts, and to quote Charlton Heston, “from my cold dead hands”.

       
    • GeeOhPeeved

      November 9, 2012 at 4:30 am

      Yet another reason why I can’t help but feel anything but contempt for those who view FDR as our greatest president… The man’s responsible for the UN and The New Deal, what more do you need to realize who should never have been in office?

       
      • James Smith

        November 9, 2012 at 7:49 am

        FDR didnt survive WW11 so i dont know how he did it, perhaps you mean harry truman. the new deal put 8 and half million americans back to work to help relieve the great depression . if you have a grandfather alive in his 80’s ask him about the CCC, TVA or WPA, i bet he doesnt feel the same as you, another one of those horrible programs implemented by FDR was social security. what a SOB he was.

         
      • GeeOhPeeved

        November 9, 2012 at 12:19 pm

        James, to be clear, are you honestly saying that the UN would have been created without FDR spending a fair chunk of his final years working towards it? I think you may want to go do a bit of reading, then revisit that conclusion.

        I love that you’d point out Social Security in his defense, when it’s one of the things I have the biggest problem with. As a temporary program, social security might have been acceptable, but as a permanent fixture, it’s an atrocity. Hell, I might even be ok with it if it was possible to opt out. However, since we’re forced to pay into SS, our benefits don’t have much to do with what we pay in(well, except for the negative correlation between the amount paid in and benefits experienced by those who make “too much”), and the fact that we’re FORCED to contribute, SS is contrary to everything I, and all conservatives, believe in.

         
    • brandon

      November 9, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      terry your last statement is very true and with obama in office it will get worse and if mit got in it would get worse too because the idea of one governing body is the goal it is clearly stated in the bible the the antichrist will collect and control the world

       
      • JNC

        November 13, 2012 at 11:55 pm

        too bad SS was created when the average life expectancy back then was 67, which means after you retired at 65 you only collected for 2 years. yeah SS sure was a good idea wasnt it? a POS idea.

         
  7. Beverly Anderson

    November 8, 2012 at 11:21 am

    I’m deeply concerned with we’re this is going

     
  8. Maarten Schenk

    November 8, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Well, looks like people on Facebook are noticing these increased gun control attempts. Look at that graph! http://politics.trendolizer.com/2012/11/obama-moves-forward-with-first-gun-control-measure-hours-afterelection.html

     
  9. truth

    November 8, 2012 at 11:25 am

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

    learn a little!

    (From the Moderator – As the following comments show, including the language from the UN ATT directly, snopes is not a reliable source on this matter nor is the UN Arms Trade Treaty benevolent in its intentions)

     
    • Hannah

      November 8, 2012 at 11:44 am

      I read it, but the final statement on snopes is where even it gives in to the truth of this blog’s claims… Snopes.com, “So there is no legal way around the 2nd amendement”, snopes supposedly claims. However, even snopes says that the Supreme Court can “radically reinterpret how the 2nd Amendment is applied”. We should fear this just as much because President Obama will elect two more Supreme Court justices in his time in office.

       
    • Tony Oliva

      November 8, 2012 at 11:48 am

      Just because snopes says its false doesn’t ACTUALLY mean its false. Perhaps if you read the treaty you would realize. Snopes isn’t foolproof nor are they completely reliable. So here’s just a taste of the more egregious aspects of the proposed treaty to be ratified:

      Article 1
      Goals and Objectives

      The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:
      – For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
      – To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

      In order to:
      – Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;
      – Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;
      – Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

      Article 2
      – A. Covered Items
      – 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
      – a. Battle Tanks
      – b. Armored combat vehicles
      – c. Large-caliber Artillery systems
      – d. Combat aircraft
      – e. Attack helicopters
      – f. Warships
      – g. Missiles and missile launchers
      – h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

      – 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

      – 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

      – 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

      – B. Covered Activities
      – 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

      – 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

      Article 3
      Prohibited Transfers

      A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

      A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

      A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

      Article 4
      National Assessment
      Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
      Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
      Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
      Contribute to peace and security;
      Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
      In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.
      4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.
      5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.
      Article 5
      Additional Obligations
      Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
      being diverted to the illicit market;
      be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
      become subject to corrupt practices; or
      adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

      Highlighted aspects that i will touch on:

      – Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

      From a gun control zealots point of view that could be ANY gun trade

      – h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

      Thats your handguns and rifles and such. They want those too.

      – 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions

      National Control System? That’s a registry

      Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
      being diverted to the illicit market;
      be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
      become subject to corrupt practices; or
      adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

      Loss of US Soveriegnty as any of those things can loosely be used by a gun control zealot as reasoning that NO arms trade should exist

       
    • Jerimiah Xander Miller

      November 8, 2012 at 5:49 pm

      Snopes is nothing more than liberal propaganda to deter idiots from the truth. If you believe in SNOPES you are an IDIOT!!

       
    • Sarge

      November 8, 2012 at 9:34 pm

      Snopes is merely a guy and some interns supposedly fact checking and then providing their own interpretation of the facts. On routine urban legends they do ok. On controversial stuff that actually involves critical thinking skills – not so much.

       
    • Robert Minter

      December 5, 2012 at 11:59 am

      Very good Someone with the intelligence to research issues like the UN treaty, I thought I was the only one left on this planet with a brain, Thank you I have been trying to help people understand that NO ONE will take our guns NO ONE!

       
      • Drawer22

        December 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm

        @Robert Minter
        Have to agree, in that I have a constricting snake and some other Colts who will be staying with their “daddy” until pried away from my cold, dead hands.

        Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

         
  10. Oathkeeper

    November 8, 2012 at 11:59 am

    @truth: My first thought was “Snopes? Really? Why not Wikipedia, or the comment section of Yahoo? Both are just as reliable a source as Snopes.” But then, just for a laugh, I followed your link. The Snopes article refers to an email that went around many months ago, not the current UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated. And Snopes cleverly sidesteps defining the language in the treaty, stating that arms trading that takes place “exclusively within its territory” would fall under federal and state law; what they DON’T tell you is exactly what this article does inform you of: any firearm that is imported from another country (accounting for more than 50% of all firearms sold here) would fall under the auspices of the UN treaty. Just as the example in the article used, if you purchased a new Beretta, the Italian government would know who you are. One up side to the treaty: if approved and signed, it would be the death knell for all foreign gun sales in the USA. That’s one way to improve the local economy!

     
    • Jack

      November 8, 2012 at 3:23 pm

      That’s exactly what I thought. We have some of the best weapons in the world. I don’t need a berreta, a colt 45 would be just fine.

       
    • steve

      November 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm

      And when the us market dries up perhaps foreign manufacturers will make with the presdure on their govrrnments. Also the registry may just stop at the importer. Still bad.

       
  11. The One True Dave

    November 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Where can I find the actual text of it? I’d like to read it for myself before making a judgement.

     
      • The One True Dave

        November 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm

        Thanks. I can already see that I don’t really need to worry about it now. Here’s why I say that. Point 6 of the Preamble says “Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;”

        The only way it would be a problem would be if the 2nd Amendment were drastically re-interpreted and there will still be enough Republicans and “blue dogs” in the Senate to keep any real gun-grabbers from being put on the SCOTUS.

         
      • Drawer22

        November 8, 2012 at 12:45 pm

        @The One True Dave
        As the Messianic Occupier of my White House has already proven, sidestepping the Constitution of the United States of America and its Amendments is accomplished by Executive Order (EO). To circumvent the sovereignty issue, the Executive maintains “sovereignty” by an EO; an EO applies only to the subject State, the United States of America, and it is enforced by the State (USA) agencies, which are headed by “czars” appointed by the Executive.

        Worry, my friend, but not for long, for you won’t have long to wait.

        De Oppresso Liber

         
      • sanchanim

        November 8, 2012 at 1:39 pm

        As a writer for TTAG I can say that even this text is old. No official text has been given final approval to be sent to vote. It is important to remember this document is changing radically and will continue to change until such tame that they wish to vote on it.
        Really what this comes down to is 1. Are we willing to give any sovereignty over to the UN, even if the effect is minimal at best? 2. There are other “treaties” also maybe just as innocuous which would erode our sovereignty. It is little bits and bites at a time, over time, and eventually you are left with nothing at all.

         
  12. Tim Hatton

    November 8, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    where can you get a copy of the UN Arms Treaty?? I would like to read the whole thing before I make take sides

     
  13. Rezme

    November 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Simple solution, buy american o.O

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 8, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      The only problem with that Rezme, is that if the exportation of American arms is severely if not completely cut off, American manufacturers may very well go out of business. Or at least have to cut back production that will raise prices for the consumer.

      It’s as ingenious a gun control grab as it is nefarious.

       
  14. Jeffrey Spencer

    November 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Could be a boon to American gun manufacturers and create jobs. Buy American and no reporting is needed, as the draft is worded.

     
  15. Drawer22

    November 8, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    My oath(s) were and are not for allegiance to any man, but to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States of America and its Amendments. Such oath(s) are not rescinded nor do they have an expiration date. Having hazarded my life in combat to uphold my word, I and many others like me are prepared to do so again.

    Cogito, ergo armatus sum. And, to mix languages: μολὼν λαβέ

    De Oppresso Liber

     
    • mike

      November 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      Well said i am a member of oath keepers and as a combat vet and a retired lawenforcement officer i say never will it happen/ even should the scotus be loaded with gun grabbers and the 2nd repealed there will be civil war and i believe the military would not follow the prez./ the gungrabbing bitch feinstein is favoring a newAWB that allows no grandfathering just outright ban, line up and turn them in like sheep,, bad times are coming bad times

       
      • Drawer22

        December 5, 2012 at 12:58 pm

        @mike
        Allow me the honor, one combat Vet to another, to give you what my generation did not get from an ungrateful nation: Thank you for your service and WELCOME HOME!

        De Oppresso Liber

         
  16. Carol Blankenship

    November 8, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Does this mean that if my neighbor orders 300 Uzis from Israel before the Arms Treaty is passed, that no one would be the wiser? Or if SW fills an order for a resident of Uzbekistan for 800 guns, there is no record of that? If so, I’d think we need the Arms Treaty.

     
    • mike

      November 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm

      is your neighbor a licensed gun dealer/importer registered with the govt and BATF? if not your question is ignorant if he is it is legal and the paper trail is ther for his buisness, quit looking for ghosts under the bed and think clearly

       
    • Drawer22

      December 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      @Carol Blankenship
      Ignorance thrives in a self-imposed vacuum of knowledge. Other than spouting opinion without supportive facts (except for pre-supposed, implied falsehoods), you write as if you have the intelligence to research. Please do so prior to lending support for restricting, abridging or denying the rights of others.

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  17. Dave

    November 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Now is the time to double down and make sure that your senators and representatives are hammered hard by gun owners insisting on their constitutional rights. The president cannot enact legislation on his own – he needs congress for that and you should be writing, calling and emailing your congressman at every opportunity.

     
  18. Tre

    November 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    lies. right wing agenda lies.
    this happened in july, not hours after re-election.
    do your own research, stopped being lied to.
    http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/4e6f05bcace14b07becef9886d445a5b

    (From the Moderator – Tre obviously didn’t properly research this matter, nor did he check out the first link that completely invalidates his assertion. For him and anyone else who skipped out on it:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107 )

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      Tre, just because you put your fingers in your ears and say “lies lies” doesn’t make it so. And you are wrong…the debate was sidelined in July because of the upcoming election. But as of yesterday, was once again given full support of the Administration.

      If you had bothered to click on the first link to the rueters report you would have seen that. But I doubt you really wanted to learn the truth and rather just wanted to spout nonsense. Maybe instead of doing your own “research” you find someone who can actually do proper research and just listen to them. It will make you look less foolish.

       
  19. Ian Albitz

    November 8, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    I’m a gun owner, and this article is total BS, yes it’s an issue, but not something that just happened and not something that Obama is pushing. If you really want to help the issue, than stop making stuff up and get real. There are alot of people that own guns and AREN’T right wing retards.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 8, 2012 at 3:29 pm

      Ian, you are wrong. He delayed this in July so it wouldn’t effect his re-election campaign and within hours of winning his election pushed for debate on the treaty to move forward. It’s not BS, its what happened. Perhaps you have the same problem that Tre did and haven’t actually read the article from Reuters, or the text of the treaty, or even this post and you just made off handed assumptions due to your own ignorance on the subject. If that is the case then I ask that you actually do a little research to acquaint yourself with the topic before you go around dictating what is BS and what isn’t. On the other hand, if you are just an Obama drone, feel free to prattle on.

       
      • Dcook

        November 8, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        To the one who made the comment on the Colorado shooting,the government used mind control to cause that so they can push obamas bullshit gun grabbing campaign

         
    • The One True Dave

      November 9, 2012 at 2:17 am

      My uncle tells me there was a freakout like this when Carter was elected and I heard this same level of hysteria when Clinton was elected and re-elected, too. Nothing came of THAT, either.

      I also heard rumblings of it in 2006 when I got home from Iraq and heard the Democratic party had won control of Congress. In fact, I remember a lot of paranoia every time the political left ever had any kind of success, like in 1992, 1996, 2006, 2008 and now. Funny thing about that is that I still have my Mossberg and my old Astra, but if I’d lived in New Orleans in 2005 under Bush and a GOP Congress & Senate, they could very well have been taken away from me.
      http://www.rightofanation.com/2009/12/14/a-look-back-gun-confiscation-after-hurricane-katrina/

       
      • Drawer22

        December 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm

        @The One True Dave
        You are partially quite right on both counts.

        The “hysteria” of which you speak fomented support for the Constitution of the United States of America and, specifically, the 2d Amendment to that inspired, founding document. That support was formalized by the National Rifle Association and other organizations supportive of the Constitution. Because of the dedication of those organizations and their members, legislators and the executive branch backed down from their announced intentions, failing to pass the legislation which would have abridged the rights of all Americans, at least until the Supreme Court of the United States of America would have seen fit to hear relevant cases. “Nothing came of THAT…” BECAUSE of the commitment of others to insure your rights were not even temporarily superseded by legislation or Executive Order, either of which would have been unConstitutional — and remains so!

        As for Louisiana, state and local officials supported curtailment of 2d Amendment rights, not the federal government, and certainly not President Bush. Individual soldiers who remained true and honor-bound to their oaths refused to obey unlawful (ie, unConstitutional) orders from their superior officers (who lacked integrity); others obeyed the unlawful orders and were, unfortunately, never court-martialed for failing in their sworn duties to our Constitution.

        Please do the relevant research prior to posting unsupportable opinion based only loosely and tangentially on fact.

        That said, as a combat Veteran and on the assumption that getting “…home from Iraq…” implies having served overseas in military or naval service to our country, allow me to give you what my generation of Veterans returning “home” to an ungrateful nation: Thank you for your service, and WELCOME HOME!

        De Oppresso Liber

         
  20. nathanfluger

    November 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    From the linked Reuter’s article: “U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.”

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 8, 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Yeah…and obama said if he didn’t “get the job done” in 4 years that he wouldn’t run for re-election. I’m sure you can appreciate how I might not be willing to take these anonymous “US Officials” at their word.

       
      • nathanfluger

        November 8, 2012 at 9:35 pm

        I don’t see that ever happening. Bush didn’t overturn Roe v Wade, Obama’s not going to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Frankly, I think he has bigger goals in mind than going after gun rights. He can *say* he’s for “gun control”, but implementing it? Not like this… Consider that at the beginning of his first term he basically was operating with a mandate from most of the nation because Bush had been such a terrible prez. That would’ve been the time to try something like this, before Congress got all Tea Partied up. Now with an economy in shambles, why take the time to do this? Dems are going to focus on what’ll keep them in the White House, and that means changing immigration laws to continue to appeal to Latinos. Gun control isn’t in their strategy.

         
  21. AutoFill Richard Pennington

    November 8, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Wow people are so blind they hear the words time for a change. Well read between the lines its no way for the good of Americans at all. He wants to run people as if they was puppets. I was born an American and suport y fellow American why do I deserve to start loosen my rights my freedom my way of life because the perfect speaking tellapromter reader. Yes I’m pissed because I want to protect my rights not give them away like a lot of people voted to do. I am a gun owner a hunter an proud of it …

     
  22. Jim Crooks

    November 8, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    and then they wonder why all of a sudden some nice guy tried to get into the white house or try to shoot one of them_____total idiots–the Bad guys will always have their weapons because most have been stolen already

     
  23. Andrew

    November 8, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    I have 3 guns and will have 3 guns in 2017 (unless I buy another one). Y’all are a bit too nervous for your own good.

     
    • mike

      November 8, 2012 at 5:54 pm

      Cautious enough to know not to believe anything this vocally outspoken anti gunner of a prez ,and to know that if he loads the scotus with enough anti gun libs the second can dissapear in a instant

       
  24. Bill E.

    November 8, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    So let me get this straight….if it says something supporting the 2nd amendment it’s a lie. Just come out and say that you don’t like Obama and no matter what he does or says you are going to twist it around and preach your fear mongering.
    Did you turn over your guns when they came banging on your door…..oh wait, that never happened.

     
    • Drawer22

      November 22, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      @Bill E.
      “Did you turn over your guns when they came banging on your door…..oh wait, that never happened.” Oh, REALLY‽ Try doing a little — just a little! — research on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the actions taken by out-of-state National Guardsmen at the direction of the “gumment” in charge. Did the armed Guardsmen and LEOs adhere to their oaths? I THINK NOT! Most followed the unConstitutional (and, therefore, unlawful) orders of their “superior” officers, confiscating the firearms of law-abiding citizens. As a former military careerist and LEO, I trust neither of those genres to uphold their oaths to our Constitution. μολὼν λαβέ

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  25. Richard Francis

    November 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    Well… I say if this passes. We as the people embargo imported firearms as a whole. Ill settle with a rem.870 or 1911 any day. registering a firearm to an “end user” won’t keep the bad guys from using it. But it will lessen the admount of law abiding citizens with firearms. You know, the good one who wants to keep there family safe (like you) and knows a firearm and proper training are a good way to do so. Also if it does pass its our job to tell those around us to buy american weapons.

     
  26. richardisdead

    November 8, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Wow some people are really stupid and don’t fully read anything anymore. Please note that the UN small arms treaty does NOT outright ban the sale of small arms,sidearms, and assault weapons as long as they are sold and transferred from country to country LEGALLY. That last word being the key there guys, this is actually the UN’s way of cutting down on countries *cough cough like the USA* who illegally transfer and sell firearms to rogue states, cartels and “terrorists” in order to move along their own foreign agenda through political dismay/revolutions in the countries that they maintain interests in. This treaty would not put an end to us legally purchasing guns and ammo, but it would put a damper on actions such as the “Fast and Furious” debacle that our government was involved in with the Mexican cartels. Granted, I don’t trust the UN and can see where it can lead to a centralized world government (the NWO everyone talks about) but I think that a lot of you do not discern between valid information and the rampant sensationalist disinformation that is spread around in groups such as this one. Even if the US signed the treaty the government still cannot legally come in and take your guns, only in a massive-scaled state of emergency does the gov’t have a “right” to confiscate citizens weapons as a safety measure. I always recommend knowing your enemy and studying up on them as much as possible, I’ve scoured through the UN’s reports and documentation on the matter and have found NOTHING that says they are going to take away any legally purchased and owned firearms. I would suggest that you do the same, and if you do find the “smoking gun” that says we’re all doomed and that stormtroopers are coming to take our freedoms away then please correct me. I won’t hold my breath though. The treaty won’t affect you unless you’re a criminal and buy your guns illegally. Idiots.

     
    • GeeOhPeeved

      November 9, 2012 at 5:00 am

      You haven’t been paying a whole lot of attention during the last four years, have you? Since when do liberals in power give a damn what the restrictions on that power might be?

      For that matter, what makes you think this administration would abide the restrictions on IT’S actions that this treaty would imply (you specify F&F, so use that as the example)? You DO realize that F&F was first and foremost an attempt to scare the American public into swallowing increased restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, yes? You honestly think an administration willing to sink that low to enact gun control cares about our 2nd amendment rights, and I’m here trying to decide whether that capacity for ignorance is endearingly naive or terrifyingly dangerous.

      In what sort of emergency do you believe the government has the right to disarm the people? Look up Senate Amendment 4615, the results of THAT type of nonsense being pulled in the midst of Katrina.

      Re-read the post, by the way- where do you see him saying that the UN will be swooping down to take the guns out of our hands? He’s talking about how the treaty would restrict and interfere with our rights to purchase weapons, in particular those manufactured overseas. The point being that not only is THAT a problem, it’s a clear sign that Obama is open to further gun control initiatives.

       
    • nathanfluger

      November 9, 2012 at 9:10 am

      This^. Though, I don’t think you need to be insulting.

       
  27. Logic

    November 9, 2012 at 2:01 am

    This is just hate mongering. The treaty deals with not selling arms to countries like Iran and Syria not taking away your 2nd amendment rights. Until they radically change the 2nd amendment, your right to bear arms is completely safe. People need to calm down and quit making up excuses to hate Obama. If you do not like him, fine..leave it at that. If you have to make up reasons than you are no better than he is. All politicians are corrupt. deal with it.

     
  28. vph

    November 9, 2012 at 4:48 am

    all this treaty states is that if you buy a foreign gun then the foreign manufacturer knows who has it…it doesn’t mean that any rights are being infringed upon…you also have to take in to consideration that this is only taking place on imported firearms…if you don’t like it buy american. I know Century arms is making their own american made AKs and i’m sure other manufacturers will follow suit and make american made versions of foreign guns. if this happens more jobs will be created and more americans will be keeping their money in the country thus boosting the economy. your insert also stated that if he didn’t sign the bill that there would be exportation laws put in place preventing the importation of foreign guns into the US in the first place…at least this way you can still get your hands on an italian made beretta.

     
  29. GeeOhPeeved

    November 9, 2012 at 5:11 am

    Mind if I reblog this?

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 9, 2012 at 9:09 am

      Not at all Gee. Be my guest. I do ask that you just give a link back here in case someone wants to read some other posts that I have made.

       
      • GeeOhPeeved

        November 9, 2012 at 12:07 pm

        Of course. Just new to blogging, not sure of the etiquitte, lol. Thanks, and good post.

         
  30. Ericka S.

    November 9, 2012 at 8:55 am

    Time to start making your own ammo! I don’t want the Italian government to know who I am and where I live, let alone how many guns I have. You want to know what I’ve got? I dare you to make the trek out to my property… you can count barrels as they’re pointed in your direction. If they are looking to stop crime, they should get their butts to work and crack down on illegal gun sales! Stop hurting and treating the honest, hard working, Americans like criminals!

     
  31. Arthur Christopher Nicholas

    November 9, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Dear fellow citizens. If any of this plays out, and an attempt is made to implement this threat on the American people, then it is time for a person with three names, limited military knowledge and a steady hand to use the 2nd Ammendment as it was meant to be used. Until then, let’s wait and see. Now let’s get some popcorn and go see “Red Dawn” this weekend.

     
  32. Senobia Torres

    November 9, 2012 at 11:43 am

    If people are buying guns for non-nefarious reasons, why do you care who knows you have them? If you got it the legal way and have whatever permits you need to have/carry it and are being a responsible owner, again – why do you care who knows you have them?

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 9, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Because Senobia, registration is the first step towards confiscation. If the government knows you have them, then if they decide that you shouldn’t have them they have a nice and handy list of where to go and grab them. What other point to registration would there be? If I am a criminal Im not going to register my illegal gun. So it really is just a matter of setting the ground work to disarm the law abiding at the governments whim.

       
    • Drawer22

      December 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      @Senobia Torres
      Before addressing the obvious, which is so ably done by Tony Oliva in response to your post, let’s take a look at the implications of having to get a “permit” to permit a right. Rights are not permitted or otherwise given to us by our Constitution; they are affirmed. Now, if the rights to keep and bear arms can be “permitted” by permit, have those who are afraid of inanimate objects, ie, firearms, already nipped away at rights?

      Would you have the same reaction were you “permitted” to speak, assemble with others, go to a church of your choosing, or read/view/hear non-State-Sponsored media? How about if you were only required to register to do any of those activities?

      Why do I care who knows if I have firearms? I primarily care because the more who know what I have in my home, the more likely it is that I will be targeted by criminals, be those street criminals or of the government variety. For myself and for the most part, I do not care who knows that I carry. Having been both career military and, subsequently, career law enforcement, I am comfortable carrying either openly or concealed. I do, however, understand the advantages of choosing one over the other under varying circumstances.

      I sincerely hope I have responded adequately to the topics/questions you raised.

      Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

       
  33. GeeOhPeeved

    November 9, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Reblogged this on Rants of the Gadfly and commented:
    Great post on https://gunowners.wordpress.com by Tony OPlivia on Obama showing his true gun-grabber colors even sooner than I expected.

     
  34. Chuck

    November 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    So if the treaty is ratified in other nations but we refuse to sign it anyway, that would be the same as signing it and not abiding with it wouldn’t it? Beretta wouldn’t be able to sell to us anyway. Is it really so bad that beretta knows I bought one or two of their guns?

     
    • Drawer22

      November 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm

      @Chuck
      “Is it really so bad that beretta knows I bought one or two of their guns?”

      To respond to your hypothetical, YES! And here’s one train of logic why: If Beretta knows you bought firearms from them, the for financial and/or other political consideration, that information might well end up being for sale to the highest bidder, likely your own American government. Your name (and ownership of “dangerous implements”) goes on the list for eventual confiscation, in accordance with how other totalitarian and dictatorial regimes have historically implemented control over their subjects. (Note that “citizen” was not my characterization.)

      Look at history, Chuck, and extrapolate. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat its failures.

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  35. David Johnson

    November 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Thanks for the information! Obama needs the UN in order to propagate his agenda using the mainstream media.

     
  36. Rwolf

    November 9, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest American Militias?

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

    Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

    Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

    The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

    During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

    NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

    You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

    Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

    Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

     
  37. Ronald K Hixson

    November 10, 2012 at 11:46 am

    The Right wing nut’s & NRA have cried WOLF ! and the weak of us run scared again just like they want ! they don’t serve gun owners they use us ! They play us like a finely tuned violin ! I AM A LIFETIME GUN OWNER AND LOVER ! The President has expanded gun carry on AMTRAK & CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS ! WE NEED TO STAND FOR TRUTH AND STOP BELIEVING THE HYPE ! GROW A PAIR IF YOU REALLY LOVE YOUR GUNS !

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 10, 2012 at 12:49 pm

      I have talked about the national parks bill before…nothing but an amendment he was forced to adhere to in order to get his credit card bill through. And seriously, Amtrak and National Parks? What about National Reciprocity? What about his continued ban on US carbines and garands sitting in Korea from the Korean war wanting a good home in an American Gun collectors house? What about the Supreme Court Justices he’s appointed who are fervently anti gun?

      I ask you that and you counter with Amtrak…pathetic. Don’t choke on the kool aid

       
    • Drawer22

      December 5, 2012 at 2:09 pm

      @Ronald K Hixson
      Any skilled politician or other thug can insure that the non-thinkers among us — Perhaps you may even know some other than yourself. — can be manipulated to believed that 1 step “Forward” (carrying in national parks and on AmTrak) accomplishes more for individual rights already affirmed in the Constitution of the United States of America than 2 — and more! — steps back with the United Nations, the ban on “assault weapons” [whatever those are!] agenda, the creation of victim zones on any federal properties, disallowing importation of US-made — Yes, “US-made” is what I said and meant! — collectible firearms, permitting one or more states to confiscate otherwise legally owned firearms…and the list goes on and on!

      The “President” did not “expand gun carry” in any form. He allowed what is already a right affirmed in the 2d Amendment to our Constitution. You, sire, are being played like a poorly-tuned, monotonic instrument intent on ostrich-like behavior, to the detriment of those who would insure your rights.

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  38. Johnny Nelson

    November 10, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    The american Nazi Tea Party is telling the same lies about gun control that they told durningthe first term of President Obama. At least rub your two brain cells together and think of a new story.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      November 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm

      Ok Johnny, you feel better now? Just because you want to bury your heads in the sand and ignore all the evidence that points to Obama being a gun grabbing Chicago style politician doesn’t mean he isn’t. And the name calling and insults just goes to prove that your argument is pretty invalid since you have nothing to back up your assertion.

      I’ve described the UN Arms Treaty’s threat to the Second Amendment. You don’t agree? Fine. Explain Sotomayor and Kagan. Sotomayor lies to congress during her confirmation hearing saying she believed that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right and then in the FIRST case dealing with it she votes against that interpretation.

      Obama publiclly stated he wants to renew the assault weapons ban. The name is a misnomer since it is a scare tactic by the gun control crowd. It really is just a ban on all semi automatic rifles, the most popular style rifle in America.

      But yeah…keep calling it lies, and trying to marginalize your opponents by saying they’re Nazi’s. Whatever flavor your kool aid is, I’m sure it masks any taste for logic or reason you might have.

       
    • Drawer22

      December 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm

      @Johnny Nelson
      Of the Nazi Party and the Tea Party, you are apparently confused. Each is a separate and distinct organization, and each has different objectives. Please research better prior to posting so that you do not display your ignorance and prejudices so publicly. Should you choose to think, your reputations will not suffer quite so much.

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  39. John

    November 11, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Our founding fathers fled tyranny. They wanted us to not only own guns to protect us from intruders and invasion, but also in case our government ever became one they fled. Compare 12,000 people killed this year with people using hand guns (many defending their family) with over 150 million people murdered by governments last century alone! When the government fears the people, you have a free society, when people fear the government, you have tyranny and become submissive to the government! “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

    Would Hitler invaded countries? Would Stalin have killed 50 million of his own people in Russia? Would their be 300,000 graves in Iraq whom Saddam ( butcher of Baghdad) murdered if the people owned guns? We all know the answer to these questions.

    If you haven’t seen “Braveheart” or the movie “300”, then you should. Both true stories of history.

     
  40. Will Hatfield

    November 12, 2012 at 1:11 am

    “two thirds of the senate” : Let us all be thankful for our Libertarian forefathers who placed these types of restraints on government into the constitution. On our knees!

     
    • Drawer22

      December 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      @Will Hatfield
      Do not forget that, while a treaty requires “two third of the senate [sic],” implementation of a treaty not passed by the Senate requires only one Executive Order — and the Chief Occupier of my White House has proven himself more than willing to abrogate the rights of Americans with a stroke of THAT pen!

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  41. Dan Surgenor

    November 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    what a bunch of crackpots. total waste of human flesh. pity. Perfect example of why the US is so far below the world average in education. you people need some serious help

     
    • Drawer22

      November 14, 2012 at 6:14 pm

      @Dan Surgenor
      Just because you choose to have the ostrich-perspective of a potential victim doesn’t mean decent “crackpots” won’t come armed to your aid. When this “…total waste of human flesh…” hazards his life again for the Constitutional liberties you enjoy, I expect just as much gratitude as that received from an ungrateful nation upon my return “home” from military service overseas. No problem, for the solace I receive is in having done my duty, even for those who despise my kind for serving them.

      De Oppresso Liber

       
  42. No Kool-Aid

    November 22, 2012 at 8:46 am

    The media mobs spend days reporting on any crazy act of mass violence like guns in buildings, needles in sandboxes, Halloween candy, mass suicides.. take your pick. Sensationalizing these acts for another copycat news break is no different than ignoring elected officials ability to control the minds of simple people (INCLUDING THE MEDIA). Hitler was an idiot, leading millions of bigger idiots, to finally be squashed by millions of people using bigger guns! Our government should think about the law abiding citizens that might use rocks, hammers, clubs, you name it, should it come time to fight for their freedom again. I would prefer a fast bullet in the head over bludgeoning, be it given or received, should it come to that to protect my own.. Bad people are deep down afraid of us now and we, as free people, better keep it that way. Leave our guns alone.

     
  43. Big Daddy

    December 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Sadly, you do a great job of continuing the Obama bias without looking at real facts. There were talks of mass gun control during his first term, didn’t happen. And now, it’s easy just to push those dates to the right to make it more convenient.

    I am not an Obama supporter, nor would I have supported Romney who flip-flopped on gun control to make himself more electable.

    There were no guarantees Obama would have been re-elected, so why wouldn’t he have pushed his gun agenda during his first term? What happens when no major gun control laws are passed during the next four years…. I know, this same stuff will be re-hashed with the next democratic candidate to get elected.

    The gun industry loves Obama though, greater sales.

     
    • Drawer22

      December 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      @Big Daddy
      “[L]ooking at the real facts,” the supposed Executive of the presently presumed administration (and his cronies as well as supporters) continue to threaten further unconstitutional controls on firearms, as well as the law-abiding Americans who own and sell (or otherwise transfer) those arms. It is far wiser to heed a threat that to ignore it at our peril. (The world ignored Adolf Hitler. Have we not learned this lesson too many times in world history‽)

      There were not only “…talks of mass gun control during [the Chief Occupier’s] first term,” but attempts, as well. Only a push from both firearms-friendly organizations and citizens at the grass roots averted de facto abolition of our 2d Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. (I am reminded that the price of our liberties is in eternal vigilance, not in looking the other way while threats become reality.)

      While neither candidate was anywhere near ideal on the issue of supporting firearms for the law-abiding American, one was — and is! — downright hostile to our rights under the Constitution, going so far as to collaborate with foreign nations for the purpose of abridging those rights. (Some may recognize those acts a treasonous, and I would not disagree.)

      Stay vigilant…and keep your powder dry. No reason not to, as neither costs anything. The rewards, however, are in keeping what little we have left in the venue of Constitutionally-affirmed rights.

      De Oppresso Liber

       
      • StopPreachingFear

        December 14, 2012 at 10:13 am

        Define your so-called “facts”;
        “continue to threaten further unconstitutional controls on firearms” – who continues to threaten and HOW?
        “talks of mass gun control during [the Chief Occupier’s] first term” – WHO is having these “talks”?
        All you are doing is spewing your Fox News and right-wing whacko talking points.
        If you want to quote facts, quote them with satements and actions to back them up.
        You NRA Tea Party nut cases make me sick. You preach fear fear FEAR to push YOUR agenda and collect money from people stupid enough to believe the crap you chant over and over again!
        I own guns, and not ONCE has any Democrat tried to stop me!

         
      • Drawer22

        December 17, 2012 at 9:14 pm

        @StopPreachingFear – Having tired of the lamestream media being so obviously biased, there has been no television in my residence since 2002. Having no television, watching and “spewing” even that which is fair and balanced has not been an option. Instead, I do my own research.

        Being fiercely independent, joining a political movement, including the Tea Party, of which you impliedly cite me as being a member (which is only one example of your ranting prevarication), is not my character. I listen to individuals, do the research on them and that for which they stand, and make my own decisions.

        If you are so uneducated as to be unable, or so lethargic as to be unwilling, to do your own research, you have my pity, though not my sympathy. Your Messiah has made the statements regarding the dismantlement of the Constitution for which I have voluntarily hazarded my life. Along with his power-hungry minions and a large flock of sheeple, they are doing so, one bite at a time, and the bites are not that small, as anyone with the ability either to read or hear (or both) is readily able to discern, and for which they crow in triumph.

        I do not preach fear, for it is a stranger to me, with regard to the actions of 2-legged predators like yourself. When getting a good sight picture, it is my opinion that fear is a useless emotion. My primary “agenda” is to keep safe enough to continue support of the United States of America as a Constitutional republic and do my best to insure others are able to insure their own safety and that for whom they care or otherwise have taken responsibility.

        That you disagree with me is your right, and I will continue to do my best to insure that right. It is my sworn duty.

        De Oppresso Liber

         
  44. dino86

    January 2, 2013 at 9:01 am

    Obama is a FRAUD USURPER AND he and Congress and the Senate have no Legal Constitutional Power or Authority to do squat, and all they do is NULL AND VOID! This is why we the people were given the power to remove these Seditious Tyranical Traitors from office by any and all means necessary…… hence, the Consitution and the 2nd Admendment! The Constitution clearly spells out that even if Obama were a legitimate President and “he is not”, he still does not posess the power or authority, nor does Congress and the Senate, to USURP the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Nor do they have the power or authority to Declare Martial Law and force their Seditious Traitorist NWO updon the people!
    hey are all operating outside of the Constitution at this point and are in bed with foreign governments and enemy agents providing aide and comfort to them! This Criminal Cabal is going to end up being physically removed and arrested, tried, convicted and hanged by the American people for their Sedition and Treason to our Nation! We have lawsd for Treason and they need to be adhered to and their hangings need to be on National Telivision broadcast world wide to let all Tyranical Dictators around the globe know what happens to those who try to over throw these United States!! It needs to happen!!!
    CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR: AS LONG AS THERE IS A FRAUD IN THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, CONGRESS AND THE SENATE CAN PASS NO LAWS!!!!
    SINCE WHEN DOES THIS GOVERNMENT BECOME BIGGER AND

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: