And When They Came For The Gun Owners... »
Posted By Shana4Liberty 1 year, 1 month ago in Political News
During the 2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008, here is how Barack Obama responded to a question pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms (emphasis added):
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
Read Full Story at unitedliberty.org »
1669 Views Share Story 50 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Shana4Liberty
I'm a stay-at-homeschooling mom of 4 living in central Alabama, but a native of south Texas. Feel free to friend me and send me ...
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 225 of 251 Comments (view all)
-
89%
rightfromwrong1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this topic is a double edged sword. Most people would go for gun control if a) the criminals didn't have them b)if the US government wasn't so contrived...as we all know they continue to usurp our liberties and we get closer to a dictatorship.
Reply
Coming soon is the smart card able to tract your every move If you don't carry one you will be on a list of suspected terrorists and wind up in one of those prisons in the middle of the Dakotas-
77%
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think people would be wrong-headed to go for gun control because (a) it doesn't work and (b) a gun is the only tool that levels the playing field for women, the frail, and people of short stature. It is the only hope of stopping a home invasion, car-jacking, or public abduction for a woman. FBI stats show only 15% of women are able to stop violent attacks, and only 34% of men.
Reply
What concerns me is that people really don't get that psychopaths comprise about 1% of the population (sociopaths of various types up to 2%), and they aren't going anywhere just because you disarm the law-abiding. The 80-20 rule just doesn't support it. It's just feel-good legislation. -
86%
earthlingerer1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd suppose some people had an argument where they tried to push that "a well regulated and armed militia" meant the national guard.
Reply
Unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense just pretty much called for the integration of the national guard into the active armed forces.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/11/military...
So this pretty much means that there is (or will very soon be) no militia to protect the people from the injustices that could occur if tyranny became the rule of law....
...but for those citizens who have arms. -
-
50%
BB641 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not true. We see time and time again where strong enforcement of gun control laws don't work. Look at the UK. A terrible shooting took place and gun control even disarmed their Olympic teams. Now gun crime is way up. Most weapons found by the police came in illegally through the Chunnel.
Reply
We fear gun control also because of past crimes committed by dictatorships. Nazi German, Cuba, USSR, Communist China and North Korea are just a few examples of the police state having all of the weapons and the common citizen disarmed.
BO's comments are very telling. He came from a community with very strict anti-gun owner laws yet Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. The police have been so challenged their Governor has threatened to send in the National Guard. Civilians have no weapons legally so that means only criminals and the government does. Sounds like a police state to me.
-
-
59%
crespi1 year ago
-
90%
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Atheists, Obama voters, gays, etc. all deserve the freedom to exercise their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. We have a natural right to life and a right to defend that life.
Reply
Armed, trained, ready individuals aren't easily surprised or assaulted, and they are generally disciplined and responsible and available in emergencies. Our founders knew this from personal experience. -
86%
ChefEOD1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why can't you just leave it at "anyone who threatens to shoot their neighbor" period? You don't really believe those things are all one sided or only exist in one group of people only do you? Evil lurks in the hearts of ALL men, it is no respecter of persons, or ideologies, or race, or orientation of any sort. ALL men.
Reply
And I am quite sure any such existing camps were built under the direction and approval of ALL our politicians.
Give it a rest!
-
-
-
50%
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In most places in the U.S., guns are not "registered." Obama is showing his hand--he has the Chicago machine bias, pure and simple.
Reply
Everyone should find such questions on an employment application chilling. He is playing the U.S. into the hands of the U.N. and Soros, and most people are too ignorant of the issues or their rights (or the reason they have them) to even recognize it. -
-
iatcncComment removed: Retracted by user23 Replies
-
50%
Codi69341 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One thing everyone is over looking. Obama does not have to pass new gun laws. Though I think there will be a new assault weapons ban. Anyway, all he has to do is place a "sin tax" like what was done with booze and cigarette. He can say I am not infringing on your right to own, shoot etc. But it will cost you dearly to own,shoot,reload etc. He wins, nothing is violating the constitution and the fed. govt gets more money on all gun/ammo/reloading sales.
Reply-
63%
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not about more money. It's about consciously seeking loopholes around the second amendment and making it difficult or impossible for citizens to exercise their rights.
Reply
The AWB was an abject failure, and researchers from the CDC, FBI, National Academy of Sciences, and the very recent study just completed show gun control only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens and does nothing about criminals. It's policy based in ignorance, and designed to make people feel good. But it removes tools of self-defense from the very people who need them most.
Why aren't people--Obama included--passionate about ALL of our rights? Why haven't they taken the time to read the words of our founders and framers and understand why we have the rights we do? How do people get through Ivy League law schools without reading those writings? Or are they so committed to their personal agenda they turn a blind eye to our founders' and framers' word?
Humans can learn vicariously. The question is, will they?
-
-
67%
GehlLady1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Memestryker and iatcnc have pretty well covered much of what I would contribute here. I'll add I'm extreme enough I don't even agree with having to get a permit to carry/conceal. The crooks don't, and it's none of the governments business what I carry.
Reply -
-
83%
sumptuousdigs1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Reply
I'm loath to read the bible literally, because I'd been instructed that I can't edit it. I can't choose the parts I like, and ignore the rest. So, I apply common sense, and some uncommon wisdom, passed on to us by thoughtful and well studied theologians.
Similarly, I regard our Nations' sacred document in the same light. I own guns. They are relics. At one time, they were the state of the art man killers. That was their only function.
I wouldn't want my 30 year old son to have access to lethal firepower. He isn't stable. How about a six year old? Can he pack with his lunch? Common sense might allow that we need to regulate a little.
I'm all for owning my own nuclear device. Why should the Federal government have all the fun? Where do you draw the line? Anyone that thinks they can resist the U S Government with their personal cache, has a serious case of John Wayne jingo. The way to resist, is to cut off the funds, but then, how do we stop the "evil doers"? Aye, there's the rub!
Slogans are road apples. Horde if you like, but if your piece gets stolen, and kills a school teacher, your safe from any charge of irresponsible ownership. You're just exercising your rights. Common sense consensus is needed to maintain our rights, and maintain our responsibilities. The argument really is about what "well regulated" implies, isn't it?
If it's not...can I go to your church? I've got some ideas of my own that I'd like sanctified.-
75%
GehlLady1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" but if your piece gets stolen, and kills a school teacher, your safe from any charge of irresponsible ownership."
Reply
And there's the bias, irresponsible ownership. Ownership in and of itself isn't irresponsible. An owner can be, as in the drunk driver, the negligent parent, etc. A thief is a thief, is it irresponsible ownership if your car is stolen, (keys in your pocket) and the thief runs over and kills a child? Do we go after the screwdriver maker that he used to hot wire the car?
-
-
25%
lloydm651 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The law on the books requires anyone who commits a crime with a gun,to an additional ten years in federal prison.Right now these laws are like the immigration laws,merely suggestions.What we need is a law against most judges who listen to there sob sister wives more than the prosecutors.
Reply-
-
100%
GehlLady1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lloyd,
Reply
In Florida we have the 10-20-life mandatory sentences. 3 yrs man. for a felon caught with a gun, 10 yrs if you show a gun in the commision of a crime, 20 yrs if you fire it, life if you kill. We can have guns, carry/conceal, but if you commit a crime with it, you're gone for a long, long time. We punish the criminals, not the law abiding gun owners.
-
-
83%
sumptuousdigs1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sob-sisters, Manly phrase. You get an A for sweet talk. Laws on the books that apply to criminal court sentencing, could use some stiffening. At the same time, if jurisprudence weren't desired, we wouldn't need judges, would we? You may find yourself before the bench one day (of course through no fault of your own), and have to depend on legal jurisprudence to sift through the mitigating circumstances, to arrive at that fact.
Reply
Or you could just blow through the door with a loaded .44! Is that the better solution? Like TFL alluded to. Stuff happens, just make it so you're not part of the stuff.
I was looking at iatcnc's avatar. I can legally own one of those. (Now iatcnc, don't change it to an inflatable leather 'n' lace sheep, just for my benefit.) At one time those were the assault weapons of contention. (Lexington-Concord? Alamo?)
So dinosaurs rule the day? LOL!!-
iatcncComment removed: Retracted by user
-
67%
sumptuousdigs1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor sheep indeed! The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights were written by the liberals of their day. They were considered outrageous. Lol! I'm curious, is that a Napoleon Howitzer? It looks like a 12 pounder. It must be hard to haul that around in your hand, cold and dead, or not. Lol!
Reply -
50%
GehlLady1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" Laws on the books that apply to criminal court sentencing, could use some stiffening. "
Reply
For the criminals in and out of that revolving door. Of course there are those that are innocent.
"Like TFL alluded to. Stuff happens, just make it so you're not part of the stuff."
In general, when you have the option, of course, but it's not always possible, through no fault of our/your own.
" iatcnc's avatar"
LOL, love the cannon!
-
-
60%
tchef1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barack Obama isn't going to take your guns away. Democrats seeking national office haven't gone after gun control since John Anderson in the 70's. Give it up already. I'm a Democrat and a gun owner. I live in Maryland that is almost completely ruled by Democrats. No one is trying to take my guns.
Reply-
40%
Wolfie20071 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tchef
Reply
"Barack Obama isn't going to take your guns away. Democrats seeking national office haven't gone after gun control since John Anderson in the 70's. Give it up already. I'm a Democrat and a gun owner. I live in Maryland that is almost completely ruled by Democrats. No one is trying to take my guns."
Just goes to show the lack of knowledge and intelligence of Obama voters. So no democrat seeking national office has sought gun control since John Anderson in the 70's, huh? Gun control was a feature in Al Gores campaign in the 90's. Yes, there are folks in your government conspiring to take your guns as I type. Oh, to be so dumb and trusting. lmao
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
86%
fjgalt1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally, I don't and have never owned a gun but I will acquire one or more the day the government says I can't. Only a government that is or plans to be a dictatorship will outlaw guns. It is because of tyranny that the 2nd Amendment exists. Citizens aren't guaranteed the right to own weapons because they can form militia; militia can exist because the citizens are armed. If colonial Americans had not been armed, we would still be living in a monarchy under British oppression. Hessian and British soldiers were surprised by armed colonials because citizens in their countries were forbidden to own weapons.
Reply
If citizens owning guns are easily beaten by better armed military, then why do we have so much difficulty in occupying third-world countries such as Iraq and before in Vietnam?
Swiss citizens can own any weapon -- even a tank, cannon, machine gun, etc. -- and their crime rate is so low they hardly keep statistics. Switzerland, bordering Germany, wasn't invaded in both world wars precisely because its citizens are armed and trained in weaponry when serving in their military.-
67%
antibrainwasher1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Swiss are 99.9 % white. No racial minorities there, much like the Japanese (no guns allowed) , whose crime rates are much lower than the swiss, or Koreans, the same.
Reply
Your Swiss metaphore is like the cheese, full of holes. The english have very strict gun laws, their murder rate much lower, less than half.
But don't let reality stand in the way of bullcrap.
-
-
80%
fjgalt1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for criminals, it is rare that the police are present when a crime is committed. Some years ago, one police officer on a talk show said the police are basically historians, showing up after the crime to record what happened. No one plans to be in the place and time to be robbed, raped, murdered, etc. But these events happen. As I age and become weaker, I may decide to own a gun.
Reply
States that have adopted conceal/carry laws have found that their violent crime rate has decreased dramatically.
I recommend two books: "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen P. Halbrook (ISBN 0-945999-38-0) and "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr. (ISBN 0-266-49363-6). -
-
33%
antibrainwasher1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, better quick dig a hole there in the trailer park, and hide, the commie liberal nazi acorn homosexuals are coming to take your guns and force you into education camps.
Reply
Stock up on a case of snickers and RC Cola, like your mother/wife fed you as a babe, and take your AM radio with extra batteries to listen to you master, the closet homosexual drug addicted Gay Lamebaugh. Extra tin foil for your pointy hat, to deflect the alien rays.
We will let you know when its time to come out.
-
-
-
-
67%
StevieGee1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guns should be registered. This can help law enforcement solve gun crimes and could help to return stolen guns to their owners. There should be a 3 day waiting period to buy a gun. This can prevent some "crimes of passion" and save lives. (although admittedly not very many). These are some very sensible gun controls. In CA, we have an assault weapons ban. This is stupid because, since fully automatic weapons are already illegal, it bans weapons solely based on the style. The legislators argued that they weren't designed for hunting. I am pro gun. I'm not a hunter. There are certain restrictions that I believe are necessary to assure responsible gun ownership. Let's not go overboard though.
Reply -
67%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The argument about guns is a red herring in the first place.
Reply
The 2nd Amendment says ARMS. The reason why is because there was an expectation that states would be able to counter the strength of the Federal army collectively. That included artillery pieces.
The government has placed plenty of regulations on explosives.
The fight was lost a long time ago. The question - is that a bad thing? -
100%
Harbeas1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cars are more dangerous than guns? The difference being that cars were not invented for one purpose(to kill). I don't have a gun and don't plan on purchasing one. For those that feel their right is so overriding, go ahead and purchase one. I certainly don't understand the beef of having to have a background check before you purchase one though.
Reply -
fjgaltComment removed: Spam
More News
Fox News Politics
U.N. Ambassador Says U.S. Making Progress on Cooperation
GOP Blocks Controversial Obama Nominee Dawn Johnsen Before Recessing
States Seek Federal Bailout to Replenish Empty Jobless Funds
Feds Pay Virginia $500K for Providing Obama Inauguration Buses
Obamas Thank Troops in Christmas Message, GOP Vet Recalls Why He Served
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.