Obama's Letter/ Arizona Post ;RE;Guns & 2A

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Car54, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    I was wondering when he was going to start on this issue. Thanks for the heads-up.
     

  2. wmille01

    wmille01 New Member

    508
    0
    0
    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.
     
  3. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    He's a slimy bastard and I do not trust a word he says. Likewise Holder, Napolitano, et al.
     
  4. PSmitty1

    PSmitty1 New Member

    49
    0
    0
    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.
     
  5. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,677
    390
    83
    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.
     
  6. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    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.
     
  7. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    3,331
    97
    48
    Sounds like selling a gun to a friend or co-worker is going to get a hell of a a lot harder
     
  8. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0
    "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!
     
  9. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    1,601
    0
    0
    "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!!!
     
  10. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0

    YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WITH THAT ONE!

    i was watching FOX last night and saw where a man was being let out 12 years early for good behavior AFTER he had spent 40 or 50 some years for murdering a 5 year old neighbor boy (he was 16 at the time)............he kept a journal of how he tortured, sodomized, and eventually killed the child, all because he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. they found the child's bones 7 years later, when another child (teenager) was almost abducted by the same suspect. the 5 year old's bones were varnished and polished, as if "they were rubbed daily, as a prize."

    they should've lit that SOB up within days of his arrival...........he shouldn't have cost the taxpayers (the boy's parents) a dime of tax money.

    if convicted of murder, with 3 or more "without a shadow of doubt" pieces of evidence, you get to ride the lightning for free!
     
  11. 556plinker

    556plinker New Member

    338
    0
    0
    Yes Dog, but after the evil republicans get kicked out for trying to balance the budget by withholding Gov't Cheese the Dems will be back in. He's got 2 years left and we've got two years to buy anything that has the potential to go on the chopping block. These titsuckers hopefully won't make a return but you never know.
     
  12. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    +100!

    The conspiracy-minded might even think the government was releasing violent criminals back on the street in order to have a plausible justification for disarming everyone. I mean, when you execute violent offenders after their first crime, recidivism is awfully low and there's no cost for continued incarceration.
     
  13. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    We already have laws against violent crime and illegal gun ownership...........Wait one more law and the criminals will finally come to their senses and stop breaking the law. :rolleyes: A law never prevented a crime. Laws are there so if you do commit a crime you will know what the punishment will be. Whenever a lib starts in on gun laws just ask them if they can name just one law that ever prevented a crime. We have a law against stealing but people still steal. Murder, people still murder. Speeding, people still speed etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  14. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    Got this in an email today. The NRA rebuttal to Obama's letter:

    March 14, 2011

    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

    We agree with your assertion that "Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing" in light of the shooting in Tucson . In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy. These included the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly"), the Brady Campaign ("Gabrielle Giffords Shooting 'Inevitable'") and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG ("Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting"). Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda. In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided "playing politics with other people's pain" with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

    We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington , D.C. 's and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

    If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

    The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people – not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

    As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court – rather than state court – strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

    Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law. We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's "Fast and Furious" operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms "walk" across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels. One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue. Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws – and undermined the firearm industry's concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program. We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.

    There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior. If media outlets won't show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don't want to encourage that behavior by others – surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

    Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them. In the case of Tucson , a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems. That's not a deficiency in our gun laws, it's a deficiency in our mental health system – and should be treated as such.

    In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA's 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one. We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system. Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

    Sincerely,
    Wayne LaPierre
    Executive Vice President
    National Rifle Association Chris W. Cox
    Executive Director
    NRA-ILA
     
  15. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo New Member

    1,490
    0
    0
    I wonder he even read it, most if not all liberals ignore the facts in hope that they'll change.
     
  16. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    The first paragraph says it all:

    "We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred."
     
  17. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    lapierre is not too bright. sending a letter to obama and expecting him to read it, understand, and do the right thing is no different than handing a starving grizzly a letter asking him to read it understand it and not eat you...
     
  18. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    That right there is enough for me! :cool: We do not need a dialogue with the President nor should we be having a debate about gun rights with him. He was elected to do the will of the people and that will is to support 2A. If he doesn't like it or chooses to not believe it I do not care. He works for me, not the other way around. :mad:

    Mr. President if you want to do something about gun crime, start with the criminals first! ;)
     
  19. culdee

    culdee New Member

    293
    0
    0
    I agree

    Its just this simple. The guy is a liar and deceitful SOB.