Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Obama's Letter/ Arizona Post ;RE;Guns & 2A (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/obamas-letter-arizona-post-re-guns-2a-39748/)

Car54 03-13-2011 11:12 PM

Obama's Letter/ Arizona Post ;RE;Guns & 2A
 
We must seek agreement on gun reforms

bkt 03-13-2011 11:35 PM

I was wondering when he was going to start on this issue. Thanks for the heads-up.

wmille01 03-13-2011 11:43 PM

all and all, he does have a point we should do more to make sure the certain people don't get there hands on guns. But also we need to make sure the anti gun sob's don't get what they want.

CA357 03-14-2011 12:15 AM

He's a slimy bastard and I do not trust a word he says. Likewise Holder, Napolitano, et al.

PSmitty1 03-14-2011 12:33 AM

I'll pick a few statements out of this and what thought as I read it.

These are my opinions.

"..... 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 use of the word robust suggests to me Obama feels 2A is too big and too broad and not restrictive enough.


"Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else."

^ Says to me, new restrictive gun legislation will be focused on businesses and individuals who sell guns.

" Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens."

^He's refering to information provided by states that goes into the background check system. To me it says more tax dollars will go to states with the most restrictive gun laws.

These are just a couple of the things that stood out to me.

JTJ 03-14-2011 01:21 AM

California and Illinois absolutely need to be reformed. Start by locking up all the anti-gun nuts for sedition and/or civil rights violations. Of course that would include him and at least half of congress.

dog2000tj 03-14-2011 03:01 AM

He's got less than 2yrs left and no more majority in the House. He can bs all he wants, i didn't buy it then and i won't buy it now. :cool:

As far as I'm concerned he and the gun banners can go and pound sand! :mad: There is nothing to debate or compromise on - 2A affirms my inalienable right to defend myself.

CourtJester 03-14-2011 03:33 AM

Quote:

If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
Sounds like selling a gun to a friend or co-worker is going to get a hell of a a lot harder

USEBOTHHANDS 03-14-2011 06:01 AM

"However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

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.

That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."

"Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens."


WHOSE COMMON SENSE?

SOUNDS LIKE HE'S REACHING WITH ONE HAND, TO KEEP WE GUNOWNERS FROM DROWNING, AND WILL POSSIBLY BE USING THE OTHER HAND TO CONCEAL THE KNIFE THAT WILL STAB US IN THE BACK.............IF YOU ASK ME.

I INTERPRET "REWARDING THE STATES" AS, OFFERING "BIG" REWARDS FOR SNITCHES AND RATS TYPE OF A SYSTEM.........LIKE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS.

JUST MY TAKE..............................DON'T TURN YOUR BACKS ON THE 2ND JUST BECAUSE HE "WANTS" TO BE YOUR FRIEND.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED HE CAN WANT IN ONE HAND AND Sl-l IT IN THE OTHER, AND SEE WHICH ONE FILLS UP THE FASTEST!

pandamonium 03-14-2011 06:41 AM

"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."



This is the KEY to the whole problem. If they want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, WHY DO THEY LET THEM BACK OUT ON THE STREET!!!! Our "criminal justice" system is a joke. There is no deterrent to committing crimes. They try to take away or "regulate" the rights of law abiding citizens because the current system is a failure and they have NO effing clue as to what to do!!!


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.