hussein, allies, obummerbots, still pushing gun control after senate defeat.

[powderman]

Obama, allies try to revive gun control push despite Senate defeat  Published May 03, 2013
FoxNews.com     

•    May 3, 2013: President Obama delivers a speech at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City, Mexico. (AP)

In Washington, it may seem like Congress has moved beyond gun control.
After Democrats' highly touted background check bill was defeated in a Senate procedural vote last month, lawmakers immediately turned their attention to other matters, like immigration legislation, the budget and -- in light of the Boston terror attack -- security.
But President Obama and his allies do not plan to let up, with Vice President Biden reportedly preparing to launch a new push for gun legislation and Obama's campaign arm trying to enlist the public to support the cause.
 
As opponents of stricter gun laws rallied Friday in Texas for the National Rifle Association's annual convention, Obama himself used a speech during his visit to Mexico to once again sound the call for new regulations.
"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," Obama told the crowd. "I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will. But at the same time, as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.
 
"That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States," he said.
While an inordinate number of crime guns in Mexico are ultimately traced to the United States, the remark is sure to agitate critics of the failed Fast and Furious operation -- which allowed weapons to "walk" across the Mexican border as part of an anti-trafficking sting but ended up fueling violence in the process.
 
Obama, though, is trying to renew focus on gun violence after the Senate bill failed last month -- he vowed at the time that the debate was only "round one" in a longer battle.
Republicans concerned that any new laws will be an ineffective way to reduce crime -- and a threat to the Second Amendment -- are adamant that round two will not be successful either.
At the NRA conference Friday, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz warned "the fight is not over."
"President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have come out and said they intend to come back at it," Cruz said. "The Constitution matters. All of the Constitution. It's not pick and choose."
 
Cruz invited Biden to "engage in an hour-long conversation and debate" on how to stop crime.
Biden has not commented on the invitation. But the remark comes after a Politico.com report said Biden told law enforcement officials Thursday that he's preparing to launch a new gun control push.
According to Politico, he's planning more trips to talk about the need for expanded background checks and tougher gun-trafficking laws, though he reportedly hadn't "really discussed" this with Obama.
Asked about the report Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Biden continues to play a leading role in the gun control effort. He reiterated that the administration would continue to press for legislation and suggested lawmakers who opposed the last version would feel public pressure.
 
"In the end, senators who voted against the overwhelming will of their constituents may reconsider if they hear from those same constituents and hear how important these common-sense measures are to them," he said.
The Obama-supporting Organizing for Action is working hard on the sidelines to apply that pressure. That group's home page, as of Friday afternoon, featured a sign-up for a petition supporting legislation.
The lead post on the page claimed that poll numbers for lawmakers who opposed the legislation last month have dropped.
"Want proof that what OFA volunteers are doing is working? The senators who voted against expanding background checks are getting their poll numbers back since that vote-and they're not subtle," OFA claimed.
 
But even Sen. Pat Toomey, who was a critical supporter of the compromise amendment that ultimately failed last month, claims Congress does not have the stomach for gun legislation any time soon.
The Pennsylvania Republican had teamed up with moderate West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin to offer the background check amendment, which would have expanded checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting family and other personal transactions.
But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, he said after the vote that he's turning his attention to "fiscal and economic matters."
"The Senate has had its vote. We've seen the outcome of that vote. I am not aware of any reason to believe that if we had the vote again that we'd have a different outcome," Toomey said.
Manchin was more optimistic, telling "Fox News Sunday" that he thinks the measure could come back.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/03/obama-allies-try-to-revive-gun-control-push-despite-senate-defeat/#ixzz2SGpvzAf5

[jimster]

I have to wonder why nobody in Mexico asked him about the BATF running guns there.

I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.

Maybe the first thing he should do is control his run away government agencies.

[powderman]

I have to wonder why nobody in Mexico asked him about the BATF running guns there.

I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.

Maybe the first thing he should do is control his run away government agencies.

 
JIMSTER. You notice the obummerbots here don't seem shocked at their hero wanting to disarm us?? They knew what he was before they voted for him, They are part of it. POWDERMAN. 

[Lizzie-6]

Obama, allies try to revive gun control push despite Senate defeat  Published May 03, 2013
FoxNews.com     
 ...

"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," Obama told the crowd. "I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will. But at the same time, as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.
...
(and so on)

Bravo Mr. President, and thank you for the generous offer.

With these words, our commander in chief echoed the sentiment of every responsible firearms owner in the United States.  The NRA should take the initiative and offer leadership on this issue.  This is the best opportunity in years for the RKBA community to align itself with the voices of moderation from within its own ranks.

In light of recent events, reasonable gun control can be almost anything the NRA says it is.  They have clearly been offered the olive branch - by Obama himself - no less.  Will they rise to the occasion?

[Lizzie-6]

I have to wonder why nobody in Mexico asked him about the BATF running guns there.

I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.

Maybe the first thing he should do is control his run away government agencies.

 
JIMSTER. You notice the obummerbots here don't seem shocked at their hero wanting to disarm us?? They knew what he was before they voted for him, They are part of it. POWDERMAN. 

You have a defeatist attitude.

As an American citizen, I will NEVER be disarmed. 

[lakota]

"We need just one more law. For the children" and when that law doesnt work, "Aw common guys we need just one more law its for the children you know" and when those 2 new laws fail, "Seriously we need just one more "common sense" gun law reform, who was it for again? oh thats right the children!" and when those three new "common sense" laws fail to work... and on and on it goes. Just where is it that you liberal "gun owners" will draw the line?

[Lizzie-6]

"We need just one more law. For the children" and when that law doesnt work, "Aw common guys we need just one more law its for the children you know" and when those 2 new laws fail, "Seriously we need just one more "common sense" gun law reform, who was it for again? oh thats right the children!" and when those three new "common sense" laws fail to work... and on and on it goes. Just where is it that you liberal "gun owners" will draw the line?

I reject your suggestions.

In the pursuit of liberty sir, there are no lines.  If you wish the last question answered, let's begin here:  For every new firearms law passed, two existing laws must be repealed.  What's your NRA's position on that?

[Cuts Crooked]

I reject your suggestions.

In the pursuit of liberty sir, there are no lines.  If you wish the last question answered, let's begin here:  For every new firearms law passed, two existing laws must be repealed.  What's your NRA's position on that?

Depends.  Are they gun laws? I could get behind a background check law if we repealed the GCA of 68 and Obamacare.

[Lizzie-6]

I reject your suggestions.

In the pursuit of liberty sir, there are no lines.  If you wish the last question answered, let's begin here:  For every new firearms law passed, two existing laws must be repealed.  What's your NRA's position on that?

Depends.  Are they gun laws? I could get behind a background check law if we repealed the GCA of 68 and Obamacare.

See?  Wasn't that easy?  Background checks are already back on the table.

Anyone else?

[Cuts Crooked]

See?  Wasn't that easy?  Background checks are already back on the table.

Anyone else?

Ah yes, but the GCA of 68 isn't nor is Obeecare.........not so easy after all, huh?

[yellowtail3]

I think this 'trade old laws for new' has some merit. How about... I'll undergo background check, but then I can ship to/receive without ffl being involved. I might go for that... and a pledge that they've Satisfied and won't come looking for more next year

[Lizzie-6]

I think this 'trade old laws for new' has some merit. How about... I'll undergo background check, but then I can ship to/receive without ffl being involved. I might go for that... and a pledge that they've Satisfied and won't come looking for more next year

It sounds like you wish to become a firearms dealer.  Isn't that option available to you under existing law?

[Anna]

Deals were made promises have to be kept. All this just isn't working out nearly as fast as they had
hoped it would. For one thing they backed a joke who isn't as smart as they thought he would be.
He doesn't lead by example and only blows all the money on himself instead of acting like a real
communtist leader. Parts of Europe and the Pacifc Rim decided they were not going to go along with
him. Sick as it is the economy is still hanging on by a thread.

He now seldom leaves the country or flys to places where he needed to bolster his influence, and we
wonder why? Its now like some states are ignoring him and doing things as they want to do.
In rendering Congress useless he also is doing that to his office. A year and a half into this and he
still hadn't come through on what was expected of him, and that which he has is largely ignored.
In his and his cronies rush to get all the guns he only created a huge demand for them causing
the wheels of free enterprise to hum loudly. Capitalism 101 is something he either didn't understand
or was asleep in the classroom. His attack on big oil has only caused an oil field boom at least around
here it has.

All this isn't because he is a good president and is righting things. You do not try to change a capitalistic society in the modern world with its founding roots based in that. And expect it to go
commie overnight. Its never been tried on a scale such as with America and it is failing, we are
seeing history in the making alright. And the name of Obama will end up having about as much
importance in this as does Caligula with ancient Rome. We may not come out of this as anything 
we would recognize but its a sure bet it also won't be anything this man envisioned either.

[yellowtail3]

It sounds like you wish to become a firearms dealer.  Isn't that option available to you under existing law?

Not my wish, but if there were money in it I might. More likely - and what I had in mind - was if I connect with someone - say at GBO? - and we decide to buy/sell, I don't want to have to pay some FFL to receive it.


On being firearm dealer... that was fun, pre-Clinton. Then it became too much PI the A (which was the intention)


...and I'd rather not invite Feds into my life.

[Lizzie-6]

Deals were made promises have to be kept. All this just isn't working out nearly as fast as they had hoped it would. For one thing they backed a joke who isn't as smart as they thought he would be.  He doesn't lead by example and only blows all the money on himself instead of acting like a real communtist leader. Parts of Europe and the Pacifc Rim decided they were not going to go along with
him. Sick as it is the economy is still hanging on by a thread.

He now seldom leaves the country or flys to places where he needed to bolster his influence, and we wonder why? Its now like some states are ignoring him and doing things as they want to do.  In rendering Congress useless he also is doing that to his office. A year and a half into this and he still hadn't come through on what was expected of him, and that which he has is largely ignored.  In his and his cronies rush to get all the guns he only created a huge demand for them causing
the wheels of free enterprise to hum loudly. Capitalism 101 is something he either didn't understand or was asleep in the classroom. His attack on big oil has only caused an oil field boom at least around here it has.

All this isn't because he is a good president and is righting things. You do not try to change a capitalistic society in the modern world with its founding roots based in that. And expect it to go commie overnight. Its never been tried on a scale such as with America and it is failing, we are seeing history in the making alright. And the name of Obama will end up having about as much importance in this as does Caligula with ancient Rome. We may not come out of this as anything we would recognize but its a sure bet it also won't be anything this man envisioned either.

If more Republicans agreed with you, there would already be a serious contender for Barry's replacement.  At this point in time, they seem content to surrender the highest office to VP Biden.  Or Roseanne Barr.

[boomerralph]

As I told my senator (Nelson, D, FL) "If he truely believed that background checks would stop all gun violence, he should add an amendment to the bill that, in the event of each incident of firearms voilence, every senator who voted for it would be assessed $100,000.00 for each victim, to be used for the benefit of their family." Of course he refused.  Shows just how much they believe that it will work.

[Oldshooter]

Google Saul Alinsky and read "rules for radicals" you will see why barry does what he does. Simple as that. 
 
 
 

 

“Lest we forget at leas an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer”

 
I used to wonder why he did things like say "we cling to our bibles and guns". and ask myself why he would declare returning veterans as terrorist threats. ITS SIMPLE its in the Book!
 
 
Remember those dangerous Tea Party members the media painted as “terrorists” and “racists”? Yep, me too. And, that’s even without the Tea Party ever engaging in any violent activity.
 

Our secret weapon is the TRUTH.
Before His crucifixion, Jesus said to Pontius Pilate: “To this end I was born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” (John 18:37)
So, why would we do anything different? After all, we know that TRUTH has already prevailed. We just have to exercise patience and perseverance to see it through.

[mauser98us]

Funny back in the 40's,50's and early 60's when we had virtually no laws on guns,all the crazy stuff that goes on now,almost did not happen. Thinking the moral decay of the nation has more to do with this. That being said,more laws would accomplish nothing but disarm the law abiding. Warsau Ghetto anyone?

[lakota]

"We need just one more law. For the children" and when that law doesn't work, "Aw common guys we need just one more law its for the children you know" and when those 2 new laws fail, "Seriously we need just one more "common sense" gun law reform, who was it for again? oh that's right the children!" and when those three new "common sense" laws fail to work... and on and on it goes. Just where is it that you liberal "gun owners" will draw the line?

I reject your suggestions.

In the pursuit of liberty sir, there are no lines. If you wish the last question answered, let's begin here:  For every new firearms law passed, two existing laws must be repealed.  What's your NRA's position on that?

I made no suggestions I was mocking liberal logic so I am not quite sure what you are rejecting.
As for "my" NRA? They are not mine. Why? Because they do far too much compromising with people like you for my tastes. My rights are not subject to debate and they are not subject to a vote or subject to a compromise.
I don't understand all of this droning about "background checks! We need background checks!" We already have background checks. You cant buy a gun on the internet without a background check. It must be shipped to an FFL who then does a background check before you can have it. Go to a gun show and buy a gun and more than likely you will undergo a background check because gun shows these days are just a venue where dealers go to join together and price gouge.
It is my understanding that if you are forbidden from owning a firearm that is a federal crime to even attempt to obtain one and yet no one prosecutes felons who attempt to buy a gun and fail the background check. Why would Obama background checks be better than Clinton background checks especially when no one will do anything about people who fail the check?
Background checks will do nothing to curb violence anyway since violent acts are more often than not carried out with stolen weapons. Newtown CT would have still happened even with magical Obama background checks in place because the shooter murdered and then stole to obtain his weapons.
As for your cute little 2 for 1 deal on passing new laws? It would need to be closer to repeal 25-50 existing laws for every new one passed to have any appreciable effect.
"In the pursuit of liberty sir, there are no lines." I'll take this as the answer to my original question-you will draw no line in relieving me of my liberties.
Now I will rephrase my original question so that perhaps you can give me a more direct answer: Where will you, as a liberal gun owner, draw the line at the government infringing upon your 2nd Amendment freedom?

[powderman]

LAKOTA. Good post Sir. We have more laws than we need now, only libbies think otherwise. POWDERMAN. 

[jimster]

Only free people are armed, I reserve the right to have any kind of firearm that our government issues to it's employees, and my rights do not come from government. I am more than equal to any government employee, truth is, I pay them and they are supposed to work for me.
Like Lizzie-6 points out...

In the pursuit of liberty sir, there are no lines.

Well said.
Never saw a president in my life time, or even heard of one that could get entire states to rebel and divide the country so much, with so little leadership. Obama is a product of government entitlements, everything he had and has was paid for with tax money. Add to that a lying politician, and you have a bad combination. Add to that a congress elected by misinformed people who vote for themselves instead of their country and you have very little chance of reversing this mess. That's why entire states are breaking away and in rebelion, there is very little people can do now but try to secure their own states and break away any way they can.
 

[rickt300]

   
 ...

"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," Obama told the crowd. "I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will. But at the same time, as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.
...
(and so on)

Bravo Mr. President, and thank you for the generous offer.

With these words, our commander in chief echoed the sentiment of every responsible firearms owner in the United States.  The NRA should take the initiative and offer leadership on this issue.  This is the best opportunity in years for the RKBA community to align itself with the voices of moderation from within its own ranks.

In light of recent events, reasonable gun control can be almost anything the NRA says it is.  They have clearly been offered the olive branch - by Obama himself - no less.  Will they rise to the occasion?

"Reasonable" and "Common sense gun control" are just play words that mean our leftist government leaders can control who owns weapons. Obviously you are not a gun owner or you would know that the buying and selling of guns is already heavily regulated. We already have a system of background checks in place and the HIPA laws will not let a persons mental health bacground be part of the background check format. Add to this the laws regarding murder that were obviously disregarded by the leftist diciples of massacre one then wonders how effective laws are in preventing crime. Why saddle the law abiding with laws aimed at the crazy?

[lakota]

Why saddle the law abiding with laws aimed at the crazy?

I think the laws are aimed at the law abiding and the crazies are just used as an excuse becuase the democrats know damn well that no law they could ever pass would affect the crazies.

[Dixie Dude]

Well, we have laws against murder, rape, sodomy, adultry, child abuse, etc, etc, etc.  We already have enough laws.  How about enforcing the laws already on the books.  People murder every day, commit rape every day, commit sodomy, adultry, child abuse, spousal abuse every day.  Still the people do it.  There are laws against drunk driving, drug use and abuse, but people do it every day.  So it seems to me it isn't the guns that have to be controlled, but people.  Without respect for each other being taught to kids, respect for authority, adults, etc, it leads to disrespect which leads to other problems.  Without a fear of God, especially taught to children and respect for God by adults, then there is no moral compass, no morality, except situation ethics, no solid basis for law and order, or respect.  America has been doing away with God and Godly things, and Godly thinking ever since 1963.  Without a religious moral compass society becomes what it is.  We can either have a Christian moral compass like we had for 200 years, or an athiest moral compass like the Soviet Union and China had and has.  Extreme athiesm leads to places like Korea where there is word of canibalism.  Extreme Christian principles lead to the USA.  Extreme Muslim principles leads to something like Iran.  Extreme Buddist principles were like Tibet before China took them over.  So take your pick, a Christian America like we once had, a Muslim America like Iran, an athiest America like the old Soviet Union.  We have a choice.  We still have time to repent as a nation, as a people.  I'm not talking about an all Baptist, all Methodist, all Catholic nation, but a Freedom of Christian Religion in America, a respect for each others various Christian faiths with the general concept of God and Country like we had.  Basic Christian principles like respect, respect for life, (pro-life), respect for liberty and the ability of one to defend themselves (pro-gun), respect for LIMITED government, because you know what happens when the government gets too big, hmmm.  Respect for Family, (no gay marriage, shun adultry, and the marriage between man and woman is sacred).  Mothers AND Fathers raising their children together so boys can grow up to respect and love women, not use them and  throw them away, and men who take responsibility to take care of their wife and family.  If the men would be men, there would never have been a need for women's lib.  Free sex is also not love, but men taking advantage of women for their own pleasures.  Women are the once who get pregnant. 
 
Billy Graham had some statistics back several years ago.  Christians, (he only included those who attendended church at least twice a week to be true Christians.  Those who did had 85% less sickness such as heart attacks, strokes, cancer, less smoking, less overeating, less or no drinking, their kids were had fewer problems or got into less trouble, and had better grades in school.  So it paid to be a Christian. 
 
Ok, off my platform. 

[Lizzie-6]

   
"Reasonable" and "Common sense gun control" are just play words that mean our leftist government leaders can control who owns weapons. Obviously you are not a gun owner or you would know that the buying and selling of guns is already heavily regulated. We already have a system of background checks in place and the HIPA laws will not let a persons mental health bacground be part of the background check format. Add to this the laws regarding murder that were obviously disregarded by the leftist diciples of massacre one then wonders how effective laws are in preventing crime. Why saddle the law abiding with laws aimed at the crazy?

Well, I own more firearms than I can fit into my pickup at one time.  And yes, I've heard of background checks.  A single background was required with my first FFL application.  None since.

"Crazy" is not medical or legal terminology.  It's throwaway lay vernacular used to describe those with whom we disagree.  There is no precise definition of, and therefore has never been a law aimed at "crazies". 

We're among friends here.  Can we all kindly make an effort to say what we mean?

[Lizzie-6]

Well, we have laws against murder, rape, sodomy, adultry, child abuse, etc, etc, etc. 
(and so on)
...
Billy Graham had some statistics back several years ago.  Christians, (he only included those who attended church at least twice a week to be true Christians.  Those who did had 85% less sickness such as heart attacks, strokes, cancer, less smoking, less overeating, less or no drinking, their kids were had fewer problems or got into less trouble, and had better grades in school.  So it paid to be a Christian. 

Nothing wrong with attending church services.

And indeed, Graham DID get paid.

[Doublebass73]

"I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will. But......

A right does not have a "but" at the end of it.

[powderman]

Why saddle the law abiding with laws aimed at the crazy?

I think the laws are aimed at the law abiding and the crazies are just used as an excuse becuase the democrats know damn well that no law they could ever pass would affect the crazies.

 
LAKOTA. Exactly right, it's all about citizen control, not crime. POWDERMAN. 

[rickt300]

   
"Reasonable" and "Common sense gun control" are just play words that mean our leftist government leaders can control who owns weapons. Obviously you are not a gun owner or you would know that the buying and selling of guns is already heavily regulated. We already have a system of background checks in place and the HIPA laws will not let a persons mental health bacground be part of the background check format. Add to this the laws regarding murder that were obviously disregarded by the leftist diciples of massacre one then wonders how effective laws are in preventing crime. Why saddle the law abiding with laws aimed at the crazy?

Well, I own more firearms than I can fit into my pickup at one time.  And yes, I've heard of background checks.  A single background was required with my first FFL application.  None since.

And you passed muster? Something must be done! None the less I don't believe you.

"Crazy" is not medical or legal terminology.  It's throwaway lay vernacular used to describe those with whom we disagree.  There is no precise definition of, and therefore has never been a law aimed at "crazies". 
Wonderful how you professional leftists can miss a point. OK then I will call it "those with Mental health issues", happy now?

We're among friends here.  Can we all kindly make an effort to say what we mean?
I would not consider you a friend under any circumstance.

[Lizzie-6]

   
"Reasonable" and "Common sense gun control" are just play words that mean our leftist government leaders can control who owns weapons. Obviously you are not a gun owner or you would know that the buying and selling of guns is already heavily regulated. We already have a system of background checks in place and the HIPA laws will not let a persons mental health bacground be part of the background check format. Add to this the laws regarding murder that were obviously disregarded by the leftist diciples of massacre one then wonders how effective laws are in preventing crime. Why saddle the law abiding with laws aimed at the crazy?

Well, I own more firearms than I can fit into my pickup at one time.  And yes, I've heard of background checks.  A single background was required with my first FFL application.  None since.

And you passed muster? Something must be done! None the less I don't believe you.

"Crazy" is not medical or legal terminology.  It's throwaway lay vernacular used to describe those with whom we disagree.  There is no precise definition of, and therefore has never been a law aimed at "crazies". 

Wonderful how you professional leftists can miss a point. OK then I will call it "those with Mental health issues", happy now?

We're among friends here.  Can we all kindly make an effort to say what we mean?

I would not consider you a friend under any circumstance.

There was not much to passing muster in those days.  Applicants needed to be over 21 and have no felony convictions.  In my state, one had to obtain a state firearms license, a state sales tax permit, a permit issued by their local police, and a local business license.

I'm not a professional leftist but some folks have called me crazy at times.  I really have to stop pulling knives on people, I guess.  Regarding my friends, I used my FFL to ensure that they're all better armed than I've ever been.