Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

[Ed_S]

I think it should be reworded - 'I think you should all agree with me on gun reform'! As no doubt he'll pull another shady stunt to get his way!

Instead of concentrating on real issues he's rounding up support for a second term e.g.

Brownie pounder et al sensitivity training.......
Equal pay for women........

Let's hope America sees sense and there isn't a second term!

[BPTactical]

Typical hollow and shallow bullshit from the Chump in Chief.
If he was really concerned about the safety of the citizens he would address the fact that US citizens are dying each day in our southern border states, due to the ineptness of Federal entities that he has oversight of.
He has no credibility.
Even those on the left are discovering his Flavor Aide leaves a sour taste.
And I agree that Sniper7 has a point.
Our Constitution is not a document of "compromise".

[SAnd]

I'll repeat what I posted in Febuary of 2010-
The big problem with the "middle ground" or compromise is assumes that the opposition will honor a compromise. The words incrementalism, progressive and slippery slope come to mind.

I compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act .

I compromised in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I compromised in1986 with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act.

I compromised in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

I compromised in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban which fortunately self repealed in 2004.

I'm not inclined to compromise and meet someone half way when they come back and want to take more time after time after time. They keep moving the middle ground.

No more. You want them come and get them.

From my Cold Dead Hands.
Steve A.
　
posted 02 17 2010
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20291&page=3

[2008f450]

I'll repeat what I posted in Febuary of 2010-
The big problem with the "middle ground" or compromise is assumes that the opposition will honor a compromise. The words incrementalism, progressive and slippery slope come to mind.

I compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act .

I compromised in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I compromised in1986 with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act.

I compromised in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

I compromised in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban which fortunately self repealed in 2004.

I'm not inclined to compromise and meet someone half way when they come back and want to take more time after time after time. They keep moving the middle ground.

No more. You want them come and get them.

From my Cold Dead Hands.
Steve A.
　
posted 02 17 2010
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showth...t=20291&page=3

Exactly

[sniper7]

The letter itself seems innocent enough, but reading between the lines it looks like he wants to expand government databases to include more information on each citizen. He made no mention of banning private party sales, although I'm sure that is under discussion.

It looks like he realizes that any attack by his administration on lawful gun ownership will have serious blowback that he wants to avoid.

There was a clear message that state records were lacking. Mentioning loughner being able to get through the cracks meant a crackdown on reporting from all kinda of agencies. I can see CU reporting every student on their list every semester to keep the school gun free.

Any kind of legislation is bad legislation. The only thing I want to see submitted is removing the gun control act and allowing over the counter purchases of NFA. They want restrictions and I want lienancy. The constitution should be law of the land and it doesn't say a damn thing about me buying a machinegun or a fucking flintlock.

[Colorado Luckydog]

If he gets re-elected, he will shove gun reform down our throats, if he can. He has stayed away from it in his first term because he knows there is no way he would get re-elected if he played his hand to early. No one can tell me he wants us to have our guns. He would take every single one if he could. If I said it once, I've said it a hundred times, our government needs an enema and the enema tube should be shoved right up Barry's ass.

[theGinsue]

I'm happy to see that no one here is naive enough to take Obummers statement at face value.

He's attempting to placate both sides while clearly attempting to lull firearms owners into a sense of clamplacency.

Paraphrasing sniper's comment, Bert (Burt? sp?)...BPTactical... hit the nail on the head with his comment:

Our Constitution is not a document of "compromise".

Any "common sense" gun control measure is nothing less than a surreptitious way to continue to erode the freedoms and protections we have granted under the Second Amendment. The use of phrases like "common sense", "intelligent" and "fair" are used to play on the emotions of both pro-firearm and anti-firearm individuals.

"Why do you need an assault rifle?"
"Why do you need a high capacity magazine?"
"I don't think anyone should have those things because their only purpose is to kill."

These are just a few of the questions and comments I was faced with by a co-worker a week and a half ago. This same person had come to me looking for me to help him get a great deal on a particular new model of the Taurus Judge. Clearly he wasn't against firearms as a whole, just "common sense" restrictions.

What these individuals don't get is that we (firearms advocates) have had to continue to take several steps backwards to draw our next line in the sand - over and over again. We are now so far from the pure and clear direction of the Second Amendment that we no longer enjoy the freedoms and security 2A was intended to provide.

Our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, doesn't use the words "if", "unless", or "except". Our Constitution clearly states

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Note the period at the end. This means there is no room for additional comment or interpretation.)

So, what is the answer? How do we protect ourselves from the evil actions of individuals like Jared Loughner? We don't; at least not completely. Any society that is willing to guarantee it's citizens with their inherent RIGHTS must be willing to accept a certain degree of risks from those who would abuse those rights.

Another of of founding documents contains this declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Unalienable Rights". This is just what the first 10 amendments to our Constitution address. This is why they are called the Bill of Rights. At no place in our Constitution are we guaranteed the right to feel secure from our fellow citizens. Yes, it's true the Fourth Amendment identifies our right to "feel secure" from inappropriate and illegal searches and seizures from our government entities, but this doesn't translate to a total sense of security.

So, I believe that the proper course is to remove so many of the restrictions currently in place which prohibit honest, law abiding citizens, from the ability to protect themselves and for citizens to prepare for the possible occurance of someone wishing to deal violence upon you.

[Mick-Boy]

Well said Sir.

[sniper7]

I'm happy to see that no one here is naive enough to take Obummers statement at face value.

He's attempting to placate both sides while clearly attempting to lull firearms owners into a sense of clamplacency.

Paraphrasing sniper's comment, Bert (Burt? sp?)...BPTactical... hit the nail on the head with his comment:


Any "common sense" gun control measure is nothing less than a surreptitious way to continue to erode the freedoms and protections we have granted under the Second Amendment. The use of phrases like "common sense", "intelligent" and "fair" are used to play on the emotions of both pro-firearm and anti-firearm individuals.

"Why do you need an assault rifle?"
"Why do you need a high capacity magazine?"
"I don't think anyone should have those things because their only purpose is to kill."

These are just a few of the questions and comments I was faced with by a co-worker a week and a half ago. This same person had come to me looking for me to help him get a great deal on a particular new model of the Taurus Judge. Clearly he wasn't against firearms as a whole, just "common sense" restrictions.

What these individuals don't get is that we (firearms advocates) have had to continue to take several steps backwards to draw our next line in the sand - over and over again. We are now so far from the pure and clear direction of the Second Amendment that we no longer enjoy the freedoms and security 2A was intended to provide.

Our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, doesn't use the words "if", "unless", or "except". Our Constitution clearly states

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Note the period at the end. This means there is no room for additional comment or interpretation.)

So, what is the answer? How do we protect ourselves from the evil actions of individuals like Jared Loughner? We don't; at least not completely. Any society that is willing to guarantee it's citizens with their inherent RIGHTS must be willing to accept a certain degree of risks from those who would abuse those rights.

Another of of founding documents contains this declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Unalienable Rights". This is just what the first 10 amendments to our Constitution address. This is why they are called the Bill of Rights. At no place in our Constitution are we guaranteed the right to feel secure from our fellow citizens. Yes, it's true the Fourth Amendment identifies our right to "feel secure" from inappropriate and illegal searches and seizures from our government entities, but this doesn't translate to a total sense of security.

So, I believe that the proper course is to remove so many of the restrictions currently in place which prohibit honest, law abiding citizens, from the ability to protect themselves and for citizens to prepare for the possible occurance of someone wishing to deal violence upon you.

I am just amazed at how well this post is put together, the very basics our country was founded on, how simple it is to understand, yet in our fucked up world damn near half of the supreme court justices, half the senate, a good portion of the house, the president of the US, the attorney general, all these high up people see things with an exact opposite viewpoint.

[Irving]

sooo, what is bad about anything said in that article? Maybe I didn't spend enough time reading it, but I don't see anything negative. I'm unaware of what "bipartisan" background check changes that were mentioned, so maybe that, but what are the changes if that's the case?

"Shall not be infringed."

There is no middle ground, nor any "common sense" law when it comes to gun regulation.