Obama's Latest Blamefest

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by SeventiesWreckers, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. SeventiesWreckers

    SeventiesWreckers Load Bearing Wall

    Obama kinda, sorta, almost, but not quite, states his position on Gun Legislation. Pretty much says he wants to do something about "Gun Violence", but can't, because of "Political Opposition". That would be me I suppose, since I politically oppose him. Along with others too, of course.

    Here's the link to The Washington Times article covering his Urban League speech on Wens.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/25/obama-calls-measures-against-gun-violence/
     
  2. gladesbassin

    gladesbassin Happy Member :) Supporter

    [email protected] him beating around the bush to try and get the swing votes. What a p.o.s. IMO . I love shooting ak's I find them to be one of the most exhilarating rifles to shoot. This is just my personal experience and I've yet to fire all rifles but there is just something about the ak that I love and it definitely isnt having the ability to commit mass murders. How would we battle the illegal assault rifles with just handguns? We are our own malitia the government doesn't care about me personally we as people of the united states will protect this great country of ours from Tyranical whether it be forigien or domestic...and this includes our great soliders because they are Americans before property of the government. IMHO
     

  3. Commissar

    Commissar New Member

    10
    0
    I seriously wonder how this guy puts his pants on in the morning with balls that big:)

    "“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Mr. Obama said. “But I also believe that the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can [purchase a gun], that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial, they should be common sense. So I’m going to continue to work with members of both parties and with religious groups and with civic organizations to arrive at a consensus around violence reduction. Not just of gun violence, but violence at every level.”"

    Yes I think everyone on these forums can agree we would like to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and fugitives. That's why many of us are so outraged that his administration allowed guns to get into the hands of drug cartels via "fast and furious".
     
  4. cutlass327

    cutlass327 New Member

    287
    0
    I thought you had to clear a background check already to purchase a gun. At least here in Ohio you do, but rifles and shotguns I'm not sure of. I know they make a phone call before you can buy a handgun....
     
  5. Birddogyz

    Birddogyz Regular Guy

    1,000
    115
    Cutlass327, great point. All of us have to either show our CCW permit or go through the back ground check. Criminals do not get them in a legal LGS.
     
  6. You have to fill out Form 4473 and pass an background check for EVERY gun you guy. If you buy two or more handguns then there's more paperwork turned into the Feds. IMHO we need less Gun Control laws not more.
     
  7. As long as there is a black market, criminals will all ways have weapons.
     
  8. dutchs

    dutchs Well-Known Member

    1,000
    195
    I am putting this here as well beacause this so totally explains the idiocy of the gun ban crowd! Read the whole article, what do you think about the part where it says 1000 people are killed daily by terroists, criminals,gangs and insurgents!! They REALLY think a gun treaty will stop these guys! Freaking hysterical!! Not really funny, but just unbelivable!!

    UN states fail to reach global arms trade treaty





    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Member states failed to reach agreement Friday on a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade, and some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference.

    Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some major loopholes by Friday’s deadline for action. But the U.S. announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty — and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

    The U.N. General Assembly voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, with the U.S. casting a ‘‘no’’ vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration’s position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.

    The United States insisted that a treaty had to be approved by the consensus of all 193 U.N. member states.

    Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, the conference chairman, said treaty supporters knew ‘‘this was going to be difficult to achieve’’ and there were some delegations that didn’t like the draft though ‘‘the overwhelming majority in the room did.’’ He added that some countries from the beginning of negotiations had ‘‘different views’’ on a treaty, including Syria, Iran and North Korea.

    Despite the failure to reach agreement, Moritan predicted that ‘‘we certainly are going to have a treaty in 2012.’’

    He said there are several options for moving forward in the General Assembly which will be considered over the summer, before the world body’s new session begins in September.

    Britain has taken the lead in pushing for a treaty to reduce the impact of the illicit arms trade.

    Ahead of Friday’s meeting, Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg discussed treaty prospects with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in London and told reporters and both urged the treaty’s adoption.

    ‘‘Global rules govern the sale of everything from bananas to endangered species to weapons of mass destruction, but not guns or grenades,’’ Clegg said. ‘‘This anomaly causes untold suffering in conflicts around the world. 1,000 people are killed daily by small arms wielded by terrorists, insurgents and criminal gangs.’’

    The secretary-general said he was disappointed at the failure to agree on a treaty, calling it ‘‘a setback.’’ But he said he was encouraged that states have agreed to continue pursuing a treaty and pledged his ‘‘robust’’ support.

    At the end of the negotiating session, Mexico read a joint statement from more than 90 countries saying they ‘‘are determined to secure an Arms Trade Treaty as soon as possible.’’[​IMG]
     
    SeventiesWreckers likes this.
  9. gladesbassin

    gladesbassin Happy Member :) Supporter

    Like I've heard and said many times before when do criminals or terrorist fallow the law? If they did they wouldn't be criminals and or terrorist. Pure dumbassness if they think a treaty will keep killing devices out of the hands of the BG's.
     
  10. SeventiesWreckers

    SeventiesWreckers Load Bearing Wall

    In the interest of disclosure, I joined the John Birch Society in the fall of 1971, and I also have belonged to other "Right Wing" "Patriot" groups over the decades. The one thing they all had in common was a deeply held belief that the U.N. was bad for America. Which I agree with totally to this day. Here's a JBS banner that say's it for me. And yes, I'm still "Faithful Follower Of Brother John Birch" to this day.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Danzig

    Danzig I do hood rat sh%t! Supporter

    33,098
    21,342
    Texas
    Didn't know the John Birch Society still existed. The UN treaty is a joke. The illicit arms trade is controlled by larger nations that funnel them in through proxy states and other means. China, N. Korea, Russia, Iran, US and other nations all do this to stabilize or destabilize regimes and countries. These nations don't answer to the UN and the treaty would only effect freelancers if UN members could agree on enforcement.
     
  12. SeventiesWreckers

    SeventiesWreckers Load Bearing Wall

    JBS is still going. Along with The American Opinion Bookstore. It has been marginalized by the left, which goes with the territory of course. And having your leadership blown out of the sky by Russian fighter jets is always a setback. But they're still up & running.