Obama is "willing to bet"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama said he's "willing to bet" that responsible gun owners would support laws to "keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on" guns.

"Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation," he wrote.

"I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment," the president wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ter-gun-sale-background-checks/#ixzz1GWOqsG9j
Click to expand...

Obama and "common sense" in one sentence? wow that's a first.

The common sense is that gun laws work against law abiding citizens.
 
Ummm, how about enforcing the laws that are already there. What novel idea that would be. Plus we all know criminals aren't going to obey them anyways. Eh, what an ass.
 
Forget about what he says; watch what he does. His work in the Illinois legislature and ATF nominee tell me all I need to know about his anti-gun views.
 
Ummm, how about enforcing the laws that are already there. What novel idea that would be. Plus we all know criminals aren't going to obey them anyways. Eh, what an ass.
Click to expand...

Obama suggested three areas for reform: enforcement of gun control laws already on the books through better implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; rewards for states that keep the best data -- "and therefore do the most to protect our citizens"; and a faster and nimbler network that provides "an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing."
Click to expand...

.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
 
I am sure many will support these ideas. The folks who respect government, who trust the law, who believe that rules can thwart evil no doubt will offer "common sense" support of background checks and the like. There are always those willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety, particular if it's not their freedom being traded.

Background checks and other regulations comprise nothing more than crime prediction. Apart from the rare prison escapee, anyone free to walk into a gun show or dealer's store is someone not convicted of a crime requiring incarceration. These eligibility requirements are punishment without the benefit of trial. They impose a system that allocates freedom at the whim of a bureaucracy.
 
[popcorn] Oh boy.
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT!......You don't really believe he wrote that piece, do you?

Obama doesn't know shit from shinola!......someone else in the White House wrote that crap trying to do damage control!

If I was home in New Mexico, I could own a gun.....but up here in Assachussets, I can't even own a bullet.

He just want's to make the whole country like Assachussets!

It's called WHITEWASH!......

(And before you you young kids jump on my ass...whitewash isn't a racist term!)[smile]
 
Last edited:
Skysoldier said:
BULLSHIT!......You don't really believe he wrote that piece, do you?

Obama doesn't know shit from shinola!......someone else in the White House wrote that crap trying to do damage control!

If I was home in New Mexico, I could own a gun.....but up here in Assachussets, I can't even own a bullet.

He just want's to make the whole country like Assachussets!

It's called WHITEWASH!......

(And before you yonk kids jump on my ass...whitewash isn't a racist term!)[smile]
Click to expand...

+1
 
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
Click to expand...

Okay, I read the article. Problem is his definition of reasonable will not be mine. Think back to "reasonable" healthcare reform, what came out was not reasonable.
 
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't trust politicians. I trust big government, statist politicians even less than I trust their counterparts. Look at how easily the lies rolled off his tongue during the healthcare debate:

Obama: Obamacare will save us money. Truth: The actuary for CMS says it'll cost us money, and they're double counting savings.
Obama: You can keep your doctors and insurance under Obamacare. Truth: Cuts to Medicare Advantage make this impossible, and insurance companies are dropping people because of the news rules.
Obama: My plan will create jobs. Truth: CBO says 800K jobs lost under Obamacare.
Obama: Healthcare "Reform" will lower premiums. Truth: Mine just went up significantly. So much so that we're considering a cheaper plan.

So, excuse me if I have a healthy dose of skepticism given past performance when it comes to statements from Obama.
 
derek said:
+2
Click to expand...

+3

yeah, enforcing existing laws doesn't score high on "legacy" meter, but creating more crappy laws does, regardless how bad they are.

Whatever he sais is bs anyways. In/actions speak louder than words. I expect more laws coming and you know that's not going to be good.
 
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet ... that Obama thinks it's reasonable to obtain a physician's certification of an appropriate state of mental health in order to own firearms.
 
And bullying laws would have prevented his being a victim because of the rudders on the side of that empty noggin.
 
If Obama really wanted to find common ground with gun owners he would provide a *voluntary* mechanism for gun owners to do background checks. Similar to the phone call made at the gun dealer, you call an 800 number give the buyers info (not the gun info), at the end of the call you get a confirmation number.

Its not going to stop any crime, but it gives a nice warm feeling. If Obama truly believes that gun owners are responsible and safe, he would trust us to make a call when we do FTF transfers (if needed).

If they were really smart they would give you a chance to win some steak knives each time you call.....Call the ATF and get a Ginsu 3000!
 
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
Click to expand...

I read enough of the article to turn my stomach. Criminals by definition do not obey laws. Therefore Obama LOST his bet as I do not support ANY infringement on my rights to get him re-elected with feel good useless legislation.

Since Obama did not tell me the stakes of the bet I, as winner, declare the stakes to be POTUS. He must step down...but then we'd have... I think I just threw up in my mouth.
 
So, to play devil's advocate:

Felons, illegal aliens, those dishonorably discharged from the military, unlawful users of controlled substances, et cetera, are already prohibited persons (I'm intentionally leaving out the Lautenberg stuff, as that deserves it's own separate discussion).

Leaving other related issues aside, is it reasonable for the federally 'prohibited persons' to be prohibited from possessing firearms?

And, if so, who would support reducing the patchwork sh!tshow of gun laws between the states to center just on possession by prohibited persons? Say, for argument's sake, overhauling the NICS, no delays, a solid proceed, or a solid denial, tie going to the runner, with no further bureaucratic involvement. Felons or other criminals using or possessing firearms in the commission of a crime, mandatory minimum sentences. Anyone convicted of such a crime and sentenced to less than the minimum, the sentencing judge serves the difference personally.


(Personally, I think unicorns will shit rainbows before I'd trust politicians to make it happen - but whatever. Makes for good discussion.)
 
If the Tuscon police did their job jared loughner would have never been cleared to buy that Glock. He had several infractions with the law that were swept under the rug because of his mothers position with the county. How about enforcing the laws we all ready have instead of restricting law abiding citizens,,, again!!!

Do people really think if a criminal wants to commit a crime they'll forgo that urge because of a new gun law??? Oh wait I can't break law A because of law B. I feel so much safer with the big O in command[hmmm]
 
Obama is prepping for the time when Rep. Giffords has recovered enough to be the new face of the anti-gun movement.

She supported 2A rights before her shooting, but if she can be 'turned' through manipulation or through her reaction to her own incident, then she will be used by the antis to 'breathe new life' into the Brady Campaign.

She will become the new Jim Brady and will be trotted out for maximum exploitation.

Perhaps she'll even testify before Congress from a wheelchair, with slurred speech and pleading for tougher 'common sense' restrictions.

WE need to be ready for this, to respond fully!
 
I don't know about you guys, but I'm never going to support any gun laws that a politician says is "reasonable". The shooting public has been "reasonable" since 1934, and being "reasonable" has done nothing good for us
 
Mcameron said:
.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....
Click to expand...

Glutton for punishment? I'll refrain from commenting, although I'll drop this right here...

Mcameron = Blanka

Villagers = Sheeple

NES Libertarians = Ryu

[rofl]

My prediction:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Anyone is willing to sponsor me for the Nashua Fish and Game range?
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Bt74
Bt74
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Where is a Signal 9 Reliant???
Replies
11
Views
222
Mountain
Mountain
5 shot after Maryland high school senior skip day turns violent: 'What is the world coming to?'
Replies
7
Views
251
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Back
Top Bottom