4 ms·

Obama is, legislatively speaking, one of the worst Presidents regarding gun-control. He does very little and received an F by the Brady Foundation. http://th

Obama is, legislatively speaking, one of the worst Presidents regarding gun-control. He does very little and received an F by the Brady Foundation. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control... The media manipulation that Obummer is coming to get people's guns is quite simply staggering.

rhino369 11y ago
>The media manipulation that Obummer is coming to get people's guns is quite simply staggering. It's because he would if he could. He just can't do it.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
  No evidence supports that. None. Including his public statements on the matter advocating private gun ownership. Certainly not his background as a Constitutional Law Professor. Obama is, was and remains one of the most authoritative serving politicians on the Constitution and he has not indicated anywhere in his career that he intends to remove legal firearm ownership. UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.[1] [1]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-... Note: My guess is that he, like most sane adults, question the need for possession of a or multiple military-grade rifles or sub-machines capable of killing considerable numbers of human beings in a short space of time. It's not about taking away the 2nd Amendment. It's about Amending it to make it compatible with modern life whilst maintaining the spirit of the law.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Not sure what you mean by "military-grade" rifles, but sub-machine guns and automatic rifles are basically unobtanium to ordinary citizens. They are heavily regulated and restricted to pre-1986 firearms, making them astronomically expensive.
    - HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
      A weapon which has it's primary application in the rapid suppression and/or killing of human beings not game or target shooting. A weapon suited to military maneuvers of a fire team, platoon or larger formation attack.[1] A weapon which falls outside the boundaries of reasonable use for home protection and includes modified components or additional lethality, magazine capacity or militarised amendments.[2] [1] Military personnel are highly unlikely to conduct offensive action utilising sidearms. Sidearms are considered a defensive weapon system. In addition, ammunition greater than the calibre 5.56mm is designed to kill human beings whilst 5.56 mm ammunition and below is designed to injure and maim but ultimately limit loss of life. Injury of military opponents on the battlefield is a greater asset than destruction. [2] Home deterrence is as equally likely to be achieved whilst brandishing a single shot hunting rifle, sidearm or shotgun.
  - thecoffman 11y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-... As recently as a couple of months ago on Marc Maron's podcast he advocated for Australian style gun control laws which included mandatory registration and confiscation as well as the banning of semi-automatic rifles. Maybe that doesn't seem like "he wants to take your guns" to you, but it certainly does to many people. Obviously, like most things, there's a spectrum and this falls somewhere between "he wants to take all your guns" and "free guns for everyone!" But to claim that there is zero evidence that he'd come and take (at least some of) people's guns if he had the political capital to do so is being just as disingenuous as the right-wingers. Also, as a sibling post has indicated "military grade rifles" "submachine guns" and all sorts of other scary sounding things are regulated to hell and back and nearly impossible to obtain for your average citizen. They're also used in crime approximately none of the time. People who would like stronger regulation routinely and intentionally conflate real military (automatic or select fire) rifles with the semi-automatic civilian lookalikes.
- p_eter_p 11y ago
  Citation needed
nsxwolf 11y ago
It's not unreasonable to think he would if he could. Thinking he just wants to tweak a background check here and there and then he's all good with guns forever doesn't pass the laugh test.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Citation needed. The persecution complex in the gun cult is remarkably strong, despite there being objectively less gun control at the state level across the country than before Sandy Hook.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Do you think pro-lifers don't want an abortion ban, just sonogram laws and they'll be happy forever after that?
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      This is a terrible false-equivalence.
      - nsxwolf 11y ago
        No, it really isn't. Pro-lifers and anti-gunners use substantially the same arguments and templates for political action. Both groups believe their object of interest in an intolerable evil that must be eliminated, and use incremental means to achieve their objective.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Sorry, but there is only a very small minority of individuals that want the complete elimination of guns from society by confiscation. In contrast, beyond whether the victim of a sexual assault or medical necessity dictates violating one's beliefs, there is essentially no nuance to the Abortion debate. There are people at all parts of the political spectrum who (rightfully) believe that our current system is woefully inadequate and needs a major overhaul - without invoking images of jackbooted thugs and concentration camps. A suggestion elsewhere in the thread seemed like a reasonable middle ground to me, and it doesn't involve firearm confiscation or anything of that nature. Before you go any farther, let me just state that I own several firearms myself. But I also feel that the idea of not regulating devices designed to penetrate materials, rend flash and snap bones from a distance(with great accuracy, over and over) is foolish.

rhino369 11y ago

>The media manipulation that Obummer is coming to get people's guns is quite simply staggering. It's because he would if he could. He just can't do it.

HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
No evidence supports that. None. Including his public statements on the matter advocating private gun ownership. Certainly not his background as a Constitutional Law Professor. Obama is, was and remains one of the most authoritative serving politicians on the Constitution and he has not indicated anywhere in his career that he intends to remove legal firearm ownership. UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.[1] [1]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-... Note: My guess is that he, like most sane adults, question the need for possession of a or multiple military-grade rifles or sub-machines capable of killing considerable numbers of human beings in a short space of time. It's not about taking away the 2nd Amendment. It's about Amending it to make it compatible with modern life whilst maintaining the spirit of the law.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "military-grade" rifles, but sub-machine guns and automatic rifles are basically unobtanium to ordinary citizens. They are heavily regulated and restricted to pre-1986 firearms, making them astronomically expensive.
  - HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
    A weapon which has it's primary application in the rapid suppression and/or killing of human beings not game or target shooting. A weapon suited to military maneuvers of a fire team, platoon or larger formation attack.[1] A weapon which falls outside the boundaries of reasonable use for home protection and includes modified components or additional lethality, magazine capacity or militarised amendments.[2] [1] Military personnel are highly unlikely to conduct offensive action utilising sidearms. Sidearms are considered a defensive weapon system. In addition, ammunition greater than the calibre 5.56mm is designed to kill human beings whilst 5.56 mm ammunition and below is designed to injure and maim but ultimately limit loss of life. Injury of military opponents on the battlefield is a greater asset than destruction. [2] Home deterrence is as equally likely to be achieved whilst brandishing a single shot hunting rifle, sidearm or shotgun.
- thecoffman 11y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-... As recently as a couple of months ago on Marc Maron's podcast he advocated for Australian style gun control laws which included mandatory registration and confiscation as well as the banning of semi-automatic rifles. Maybe that doesn't seem like "he wants to take your guns" to you, but it certainly does to many people. Obviously, like most things, there's a spectrum and this falls somewhere between "he wants to take all your guns" and "free guns for everyone!" But to claim that there is zero evidence that he'd come and take (at least some of) people's guns if he had the political capital to do so is being just as disingenuous as the right-wingers. Also, as a sibling post has indicated "military grade rifles" "submachine guns" and all sorts of other scary sounding things are regulated to hell and back and nearly impossible to obtain for your average citizen. They're also used in crime approximately none of the time. People who would like stronger regulation routinely and intentionally conflate real military (automatic or select fire) rifles with the semi-automatic civilian lookalikes.
p_eter_p 11y ago
Citation needed

nsxwolf 11y ago

It's not unreasonable to think he would if he could. Thinking he just wants to tweak a background check here and there and then he's all good with guns forever doesn't pass the laugh test.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Citation needed. The persecution complex in the gun cult is remarkably strong, despite there being objectively less gun control at the state level across the country than before Sandy Hook.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Do you think pro-lifers don't want an abortion ban, just sonogram laws and they'll be happy forever after that?
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    This is a terrible false-equivalence.
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      No, it really isn't. Pro-lifers and anti-gunners use substantially the same arguments and templates for political action. Both groups believe their object of interest in an intolerable evil that must be eliminated, and use incremental means to achieve their objective.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Sorry, but there is only a very small minority of individuals that want the complete elimination of guns from society by confiscation. In contrast, beyond whether the victim of a sexual assault or medical necessity dictates violating one's beliefs, there is essentially no nuance to the Abortion debate. There are people at all parts of the political spectrum who (rightfully) believe that our current system is woefully inadequate and needs a major overhaul - without invoking images of jackbooted thugs and concentration camps. A suggestion elsewhere in the thread seemed like a reasonable middle ground to me, and it doesn't involve firearm confiscation or anything of that nature. Before you go any farther, let me just state that I own several firearms myself. But I also feel that the idea of not regulating devices designed to penetrate materials, rend flash and snap bones from a distance(with great accuracy, over and over) is foolish.