Skip to main content

I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns and I will fight to keep them if need be. Saying that, I would like to address the constant fear mongering by the right, that in the last Presidential election, and the current one seems to be getting distorted. Obama is not coming after our guns people! Everytime I read an article or see a post online where someone is accusing this administration of trying to take away their guns I just shake my head. Where does this misinformation come from and why do so many Americans buy into it?

 

I ran across this article today and I wanted to share it. Maybe it will make those that have bought into the idea that Obama is trying to take their guns away realize it has never been a real issue. Also take note of what Romney did in MA as governor. His gun policies should be in question more than Obama's.

 

I sorta hate to quote the whole thing here, but I feel like so many just don't click on the links. So I am gonna doit.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ro...ights-075546394.html

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney both have softened their positions on gun restrictions over the years. As they expressed shock and sorrow over the bloodshed at a Colorado movie theater, neither suggested that tougher gun control could make a difference, a notion that has faded from political debate.

Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Massachusetts governor. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, he now bills himself as the candidate who will protect gun owners' rights.

Obama called for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons during his 2008 presidential campaign. But since his election, he hasn't sought to get that done or pushed other gun control proposals, either.

Neither man is likely to raise gun control as a campaign issue — beyond Romney's insistence that an Obama presidency is bad for gun owners. Both say they'll protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms. A look at the evolution of the candidates' positions and where they stand on guns:

OBAMA

1997-2004: As an Illinois state senator, Obama supports banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms, including a failed effort to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

2005: In the U.S. Senate, Obama votes against protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. The bill is signed into law by President George W. Bush.

2008: During his first presidential campaign, Obama supports a return to the federal ban on assault weapons, which began during the Clinton administration and expired under Bush. He also endorses requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. The National Rifle Association attacks him as an anti-gun zealot — a stand the group continues to take today.

April 2008: Obama is criticized for elitism after sounding dismissive of gun owners in a talk to campaign donors. He said voters in struggling small towns in Middle America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" to explain their frustrations.

September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F'' for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.

2011: Obama says the shooting that severely wounded then-Rep. Gabriel Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people should lead to "a new discussion of how we can keep America safe for all our people." He calls for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks on gun buyers. But he's short on specifics, and the Obama administration hasn't proposed any new gun initiatives since then.

March 2012: Obama calls the fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida "a tragedy," saying Americans should do some soul-searching and "examine the laws" to figure out why it happened. He hasn't called for any legal changes in response to the case, which mostly brought attention to some states' "stand your ground" laws making it easier for a shooter to claim self-defense. Indeed, most gun regulations are imposed by states. The primary federal law is the Brady law requiring background checks on firearms purchasers.

July 20: Obama says he's heartbroken by the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and calls for Americans to unite in prayer for the victims: "If there's anything to take away from this tragedy it's the reminder that life is very fragile, our time here is limited and it is precious."

Asked whether the mass shooting should prompt a new review of gun laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney declines to comment beyond reiterating Obama's existing stance in support of "common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them."

___

ROMNEY

1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA."

2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race.

2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee — from $25 to $100 — as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit.

2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase.

2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts.

2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member.

2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" — a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters.

2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.

2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

2012: Romney tells gun owners that Obama wants to erode their rights. "We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told the National Rifle Association's annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will."

July 20: Like Obama, Romney avoids talking politics on the day of the Aurora shooting. He says Americans are coming together in their sorrow: "There is something we can do. We can offer comfort to someone near us who is suffering or heavy laden, and we can mourn with those who mourn in Colorado."

 

 

 

Life is short, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably, and never regret anything that made you SMILE!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns and I will fight to keep them if need be. Saying that, I would like to address the constant fear mongering by the right, that in the last Presidential election, and the current one seems to be getting distorted. Obama is not coming after our guns people! Everytime I read an article or see a post online where someone is accusing this administration of trying to take away their guns I just shake my head. Where does this misinformation come from and why do so many Americans buy into it?

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

IMO because the (*average*) American gun owner is an arrogant, impulsive, insecure twit.

 

Hand 'em a gun and a bible and they become arrogant, impulsive, insecure,(albeit locally) dangerous twits on a mission.

 

I wonder daily how half of them manage to breathe.

 

By *average*, I'm referring to this ass clown:

 

 

 

gun****er

 

"Fear me! For I am a badass!  Fo' Realz!"

 

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • gun****er
Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:

B.O. may not 'want my guns', but he WILL listen to the fruit cakes that DO: Sec. of State Clinton, Sarah Brady, Sen, Feinstein, Sen. Boxer, Sen. Schumer and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, just to name a few.

Look for B.O. to reinstate the Clinton-era 'Assault Weapons Ban'....if not via 'legal means', by Executive Order (emperial edict).

An NRA poll revealed that more professionals owned more firearms, than blue collar workers.  So much for gun owners being ignorant.  Dentists were the second largest group of owners. Accountants were the largest group, with auditors, as a subset, owning more than regular accountants.

 

As a reminder, the damage below was done without firing a shot -- 168 people died and many more were maimed for life.  The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by a couple of ill educated men using rather primitive means.

 

The monster who killed 12 is a well educated man with extensive knowledge of chemistry and physics.  Denied firearms, he could have rigged chemical weapons from readily found chemicals and killed everyone in the theater.  Or, deviced a large bomb in a vehicle and leveled the entire building.

The problem lies within the human heart.  The solution will not be found in laws, alone.  

 

 

 

Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns and I will fight to keep them if need be. Saying that, I would like to address the constant fear mongering by the right, that in the last Presidential election, and the current one seems to be getting distorted. Obama is not coming after our guns people! Everytime I read an article or see a post online where someone is accusing this administration of trying to take away their guns I just shake my head. Where does this misinformation come from and why do so many Americans buy into it?

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

IMO because the (*average*) American gun owner is an arrogant, impulsive, insecure twit.

 

Hand 'em a gun and a bible and they become arrogant, impulsive, insecure,(albeit locally) dangerous twits on a mission.

 

I wonder daily how half of them manage to breathe.

 

By *average*, I'm referring to this ass clown:

 

 

 

gun****er

 

"Fear me! For I am a badass!  Fo' Realz!"

 

 

Please note that there is not a Bible in that picture (unless it's a little one that I couldn't see)

The most stupid thing I have heard said was when LaPierre said that the proof that Obama was going to come after your guns was that he HAS NOT COME AFTER YOUR GUNS.

It takes a real dumbass to believe that Obama , or any politician for that matter, would attempt to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

Reinstituting the assault weapons ban, on the other hand is something I could support. When I got my first shotgun at the tender age of 9 my daddy told me it was illegal to have more than three shotgun shells in the mag at any time. I was also told that assault weapons were banned due to the problems during the prohibition era. Never understood why I should have some fully automatic weapon intended only to kill a person, or in this case, a multitude of people.

I would prefer to live in a society of civilized people where carrying a weapon is a choice and NOT a necessity.

Having said that, I do have quite a few guns, and I do have a handgun very close almost all the time, but not an AK47 or an Uzi

Well, I guess some of the confusion comes from the dems themselves, such as the ones that said one of the reasons they were voting for obama was because he was going to ban guns. (Guns are bad doncha know, and canada doesn't have guns and no one ever gets killed there). I guess they were listening to republicans instead of obama. Go figure.

Tell me Pup, you didn't want to leave anyone out but you did.  Do you not think an atheist can be a gun owner and support their rights to keep and bear arms just as strongly as anyone with religious beliefs?

 

And tell me, Pup, you being a drop out, in support of the Constitution, how did you "write that check in full?"  I missed that part.

Since no one here knows who I am (I think) I'll tell you a little about my gun ownership. I do own a few guns, some for hunting, some military assault type, and some handguns that are obviously not for recreational use. With that said, most of my friends would never guess that I own any type of gun. Only a few close friends and family know that I have any type of gun and most other people would never know unless they tried to do something like break into my houses, rob my businesses with me there, or attack me or mine. 

As for carrying a gun, I have carried for about 20 years and except for switching guns, all I ever do with the ones I have carried is either target shoot or clean the pocket lint out of the barrel (otherwise no one knows that I carry a gun (so far)). The guns I have carried have gone everywhere with me (inside the USA) except for on planes. They have been with me at schools, school events, in other states (including NYC), and anywhere else I have been out and about such as downtown B'ham and even dangerous places like Sheffield at night.

Lord willing, no one not close to me will ever know that I own any type of firearm, the only way that anyone would know is if they tried to harm me or my family. It's possible that someone might find out if I saw someone who appeared an innocent being attacked but on those few occasions, it has been dealt with without the need for drawing a firearm as I do believe that a firearm should not be drawn unless it's use is imminent.

I truly believe that I am the "normal" firearm owner, I enjoy hunting sometimes, target shooting, collecting, and also have guns that are meant for the defense of my family (and I would also use them to protect others if needed). Outside of that, my ownership of any weapons is discreet, I do not believe it to be the business of others what guns I either own or have on my person. I give the gov't only the info I have to when buying a new gun, no info on old guns or private purchases and as I said above, unless you see me on a hunt or target shoot, attempt to harm my family, or try and hurt others, then there is no chance that you would ever know that I am a gun owner and if anyone did guess such, cept for what I carry is kept secure. 

 So anyway, why would anyone want to take any type of gun from me? Including assault weapons and a full automatics?

Originally Posted by budsfarm:

Tell me Pup, you didn't want to leave anyone out but you did.  Do you not think an atheist can be a gun owner and support their rights to keep and bear arms just as strongly as anyone with religious beliefs?

 

And tell me, Pup, you being a drop out, in support of the Constitution, how did you "write that check in full?"  I missed that part.

If I am not mistaken, RP did serve in the military and if that is the case then it is true what he said, he's already written that check and it's paid in full. Added to that, he's already done his part to insure that we have the freedom to disagree.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×