President Obama Does Want to Take Your Guns. ALL of Them

In his post-Newtown push for civilian disarmament, President Obama continues to pay lip service to the Second Amendment. The former Constitutional scholar would have you believe that he only wants to ban/confiscate/eliminate certain types of guns. To say he’s being disingenuous would be like saying Mini Anden has nice legs. Seven words: by thy deeds thy shall be known. Obama’s actions as a legislator spoke volumes about his feelings on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. Senator Obama’s statements on the campaign trail weren’t any more reassuring. Let’s review . . .

  • Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected homeowners from weapons charges if they used an “illegal” gun in self-defense.
  • In a primary debate in 2008, Obama, the candidate, stated that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, but (there’s always a big ‘but’ where the Second Amendment is concerned) the fact that it’s an individual right “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”. In addition, for a supposed constitutional scholar to state that the Bill of Rights confers rights, rather than protects pre-existing rights is also worrisome.
  • When running for the Illinois senate in 1996, Obama most assuredly did fill out a questionnaire (despite his later claims that a staffer did it) in which he unequivocally supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a ban on the possession of ‘assault weapons’ and waiting periods before purchasing a firearm.
  • Need I mention the whole “bitter clingers” episode?
  • Although he claimed to respect the Second Amendment, he also said that the D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing wrong with a community establishing their own “reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]” while still respecting the Second Amendment. Did you catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure that respects the Second Amendment.
  • In the Illinois legislature, he supported licensing and registering gun owners as a measure to keep unlawful guns off the street. This purported constitutional scholar was apparently unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in U.S. v. Haynes that criminals don’t need to register (and can’t be punished for failing to register) their guns because it would be a violation of their right against self-incrimination.
  • In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month and in 2003 he voted in favor of HB 2579 which had the same one gun per month provision.
  • According to a Chicago Defender article in December of 1999, “Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”
  • At an NAACP forum in 2007 Obama stated “We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities.” What? He really thinks that federally licensed gun dealers are loading up vehicles and selling guns out of the trunk in the inner cities?
  • In the Illinois senate he supported a confiscatory ‘assault weapons’ ban which would have included semi-auto shotguns and even some pump, double and single barrel shotguns.
  • As a Presidential candidate he called for passage of H.R. 6257, deceptively titled “Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008″ which would have explicitly banned far more weapons than the Clinton AWB (note that this was before the Newtown, Aurora and Gabby Giffords shootings).
  • As a Senator, Obama voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers and voted in favor of an amendment to that bill which would have banned most rifle ammunition, under the guise of banning ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition.
  • As a Senator Obama did not sign the amicus brief supporting the individual rights view in Heller v. DC.
  • Obama voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would have eliminated most gun stores in America.
  • He supported legislation to “close the gun show loophole” which would have imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for sale privately.
  • As a Senator, Obama stated he supported a federal ban on concealed carry laws and as a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review “‘I am not in favor of concealed weapons,’ Obama said. ‘I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.’”

On his first day in office, on the White House website, under “Urban Policy” you could find:

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

See above regarding how little the Obama AWB resembles the Clinton-era AWB. When he talks about keeping guns away from children, what he’s really talking about are various blue-sky proposals to make guns “childproof.”

And who can forget the Obama Administration’s employment questionnaire? Question 59: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Once Obama had settled into power, there were more ‘indicators’ of his anti-gun feelings:

  • In March, 2009 the DoD ‘revised’ its policy on the disposal of once-fired brass. Instead of selling it to consumers and domestic agencies for reloading, all once-fired brass from the military would be shredded and sold as scrap. This policy was reversed fairly quickly after outraged shooters contacted their legislators and Senators Tester and Baucus (both D-MT) faxed a letter to the DoD asking them to change the policy. The fact that Senator Tester was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee might have had something to do with the quickvolte-face.
  • The DHS report, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment [.pdf] which cited as a key finding: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
  • In April of 2009, President Obama announced he wanted the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials(called by its Spanish acronym of CIFTA for obvious reasons). A close look at the Definitions section of the treaty reveals that it would require a government license for “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials”. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? I mean we sort of have that now, don’t we? But the devil, as I so often say, is in the details. Or, in this case, the definitions, because the way they’re written, you could be required to get a government license to reload ammo, add or change out a scope on a rifle, replace a factory trigger with an upgraded one, or even so much as load a weapon. Preposterous you say? Look at how they define “other related materials.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Back? Okay, when they say “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm” you think an anti-gun administration wouldn’t say that applies to magazines and ammo? So – technically – putting rounds in a mag or a mag in a weapon would constitute “assembly” which would require a license. So how much will the license cost? What will the application process be? Will it be “shall-issue” or “may-issue”? How long will it be good for? How much will it cost to renew? All of these details could be used to drastically reduce gun ownership.
  • The Obama administration reversed a decision to import over 800,000 surplus M-1 rifles and carbines from South Korea. Not only are these weapons of some historical significance, but their arrival on the market would reduce prices on these sorts of weapons, at least in the short term. The rationale (or perhaps rationalization would be a better term) given to the South Korean government for the decision was that the administration “was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” That tells us something interesting. Since all of these rifles would have been sold through FFLs, the Obama administration is saying they believe every firearm sale in the country could put guns in the hands of “terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” And they call us paranoid.
  • Even before being offered the fig leaf of Newtown, the Obama administration directed the CDC to do an end-run around the decade-old prohibition on using federal funds to press an anti-gun agenda by maintaining they are not researching the gun issue, “rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances.” When Republicans in Congress questioned why money was being spent on these sorts of studies, an NIH spokesman replied “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH.” But wait, aren’t you supposed to do the studies before you come to the conclusion that guns have a net negative impact on public health? See, coming to conclusions and then ginning up research to support them is what got Congress to implement the ban in the first place.
  • Fast & Furious and the whole “90% of illegal weapons in Mexico come from the U.S.” with the subsequent unlawful and unconstitutional long gun sales reporting requirement implemented by the ATF via bureaucratic fiat, to say nothing of AG Holder’s contempt for and contempt of Congress. And please, don’t even try to say “But Bush did it first!” Under oath, Attorney General Holder stated that he would not equate F&F with Operation Wide Receiver.
  • Under the Obama administration the ATF suddenly reversed a forty-two year old ruling, stating that “[t]he temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act” which then requires that the transfer be processed by an FFL, complete with NICS check and a 4473, lengthening the transfer process considerably.

Well look at that: a consistent record of anti-firearms freedom statements, policies, votes and administrative fiats. So don’t be fooled. Your guns are in President Obama’s crosshairs. ALL your guns.

[Thanks to TTAG author Bruce Krafft for preparing the above list.]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

75 Responses to President Obama Does Want to Take Your Guns. ALL of Them

  1. avatarST says:

    We all knew this was true October 2012.
    Yet he’s starting Term # 2.

    We have the government we deserve.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Short and sweet and correct. Beans, band-aids and bullets. And distance from the takers.

    • avatarsindaan68 says:

      Well we have the one we have because 50+ million people seem to think this is the president and government we deserve (disclaimer…both my sisters (albeit step) voted for him).

      I didnt because I can think for myself and provide for myself but there you have it.

  2. avatarAccur81 says:

    That’s about the size and the shape of it, and half the country voted for this anti freedom politician. Just wait until the UN Arms Treaty hits in full effect. Oh well, at least we have a balanced budget, good access to off shore oil, and a strong domestic economy. Not.

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      No, only 27% of those of voting age in this country voted for that progressive, hence he is NOT the majority, nor are his policies supported by the majority no matter how many drugs he takes to believe so.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Yeah, are we looking forward to shooting just below those sky blue helmets, OR WHAT?

      • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

        Count me in the “or what” party.

        I’m not looking forward to it at all. That does not mean that my head is in the sand and that I can’t see the writing on the wall, it simply means that I have a pretty good idea of just how brutal and ruthless that scenario will be. I’ve seen war. I was good at what I did. Yet, I’ve compartmentalized and am not looking forward to the event that flips the switch in me and calls forth the warrior inside all of us.

        William, I’m sure that what you posted was simply hubris caused by love of country. However, if it wasn’t and you actually yearn for that event, you need to have a moment of serious introspection concerning how such a thing would play out. Not in clean, clinical terms, but in dirty, bloody, personal loss, tragedy and depravity. Once you have grasped the severity of it, take comfort in the fact that what you just imagined is but a fraction of how it will actually be.

        v/r
        Badger 8-3

        • avatarFoxtrot Two-November says:

          Badger, couldn’t have said it better. I’ve never seen war, I don’t want to. I’m prepared to, and I know I could handle myself, but I don’t want a war on our soil. I don’t want to worry for my loved ones and friends lives, although I would put myself in front of them as I can see the storm coming if the country keeps going in the direction it is. There’s some people that won’t take much more of the injustice. I’m in LE and everyone I work with has the same stand, which is good because it means that LE won’t be used in Gestapo fashion, however I fear that Homeland and possibly Secret Service (SS….hmmm) could be, especially with the new bill just signed giving them arresting powers on protestors. Getting very scary lately, the scenario is getting realer by the day. 2012 really was the end of the world AS WE KNEW IT.

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          Foxtrot, I agree. Our road has been chosen for us, and I fear that we are so far down it that all hope of a detour is lost. My LT has said that we are truly in end times; I’ve started praying again. I pray, not to avert the crisis coming, but to have the strength and resolve to see it through, and to protect the one I love. I pray, not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders. I would rather this trial fall to me, than to the children I may yet guide into this world.

          I wish you and yours the best of luck, and should we share the same battle space, I’ll be honored to stand next to you.

          v/r
          Badger 8-3

        • avatarFoxtrot Two-November says:

          Thank you Sir, and the honor would be mine as well. I’d much rather die protecting my beliefs and my family and loved ones while standing on my feet than to live on my knees, bowing my head. My only regret would be that I died before stopping a tyrrannical society and government, and that my family and others would still have to live on and I could not be there to continue to protect them.

        • avatarRay says:

          Badger 8-3 “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” We as Believers bear the task of defending those we love as you have indicated; broader shoulders indeed brother! Let us all remember, Christ was not a pacifist; nor should we be.

  3. We the sheeple are best served by listening to politicians and taking them at their word. We should never, ever, examine their actions. After all, their intentions are pure and don’t forget it’s for the children. /sarc

    Illustrating Chicagoland Idiocy, Mayhem and Stupidity at heyjackass.com

  4. Yeah, the Republicans had to really work at it to be even more repulsive to voters. Imagine what might have happened if they’d run a competent campaign.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      This.

      Unfortunately, the Republicans are more interested in selling out the middle class for the benefit of the super-wealthy (many of whom are liberals) and corporations.

      Useful-idiots who defend billionares influencing policy and legislation in ways most of us cannot should not be complaining about Michael Bloomberg — the 10th richest man in America — using part of his $25 billion fortune to advance his agenda. Isn’t this what Republicans and Libertarians want?

      The NRA’s annual budget is about $230 million, a little less than 1% of Bloomberg’s $25 billion. And since “money is speech” (right?), Bloomberg is entitled to 100 times more speech than us 5 million NRA members.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Sniff. I smell a red herring.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          Me too. I don’t see all these gun control / anti freedom measures coming from politicians who have R ‘s in front of their names.

          And Obama sure did have a slick campaign, I can’t argue that.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          bullshit.

          Republicans interfered and trampled on the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments on our constitution.

          and now these same republicans are jumping on obama for attempting to violate the 2nd.

          Its the same horseshit over and over again.

          If you mess with one bill, you mess with all of them. FACT.

          2nd amendment supports, GET OUT OF THE REPUB/DEMO PARADIGM!

      • avatarWilliam says:

        “Unfortunately, the Republicans are more interested in selling out the middle class for the benefit of the super-wealthy (many of whom are liberals) and corporations.

        Useful-idiots who defend billionares influencing policy and legislation in ways most of us cannot should not be complaining about Michael Bloomberg — the 10th richest man in America — using part of his $25 billion fortune to advance his agenda. Isn’t this what Republicans and Libertarians want?”

        NAILED that! Nice.

      • avatarBryan says:

        “Anonymous” really, come on Axelrod don’t be a wuss.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        you want a real shocker, try comparing the “BIG BAD EVIL” gun industry to the pharmaceutical industry.

        If you want to be really blown away, compare the aforementioned gun industry to the psych medication industry (just psych meds).

  5. avatarChuck says:

    This can’t be true. My union buddies told me so!

  6. avatarTangledThorns says:

    TTAG should conduct a poll on how many of their readers voted for Obama. I bet the number is higher than we think, sadly.

    • avatarChubby says:

      I’d say about 80% of TTAG readers voted for O.

    • avatarTex74 says:

      I bet you wouldn’t get an honest response.

    • avatarJames1000 says:

      I will say that I voted for Obama in 08. (While knowing I’ll get slaughtered in this forum). Frankly, at the time and in my opinion I was selecting the better of two evils. I did not in 12.

      • avatarDisThunder says:

        Same here. And even though I didn’t vote for him last year, I still think we’d be in a similar state. The only difference is the banners would have to do it without Obama’s cult of personality army. As it is, even with that crowd, I think the numbers are more for our side.
        But hey, if standing up for what you believe in was easy, everybody would do it…

        • avatarJake says:

          No compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Voted for RP both times, people who voted for O, McLame, or Willard brought this on themselves.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      you should be ashamed if you voted for Romney too.

      Listen up boys and girls: when you play by the hegelian dialectic’s rules, this is what you get.

      Notice how the momentum shifts from “were going to ban them!” to “well lets be sensible” to “states will probably do somethings, but not all”. Its a constant teeter totter.

  7. avatarMDC says:

    Total confiscation will come thru a economic crises this countrys never seen before.

    • avatarPM says:

      This is actually quite plausible, assuming some economic melt down does occur. Want some food for your starving kids? Medicine? Some attention from a physician? No problemo, Big Brother has you covered. All you have to do is let us search your house for nasty guns that you don’t need anyway.

      They can disarm huge numbers of people without ever firing a shot.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Call me an optimist:

      Total confiscation will come thru be attempted due to a an economic crises crisis this countrys never seen before.

  8. avatarhandfulofsounds says:

    So, what you’re saying is, Obama doesn’t like guns now and he never did? SAAY WHAATTT?

  9. avatarJonathan miller says:

    I am just not seeing that your text (and there is a lot of it) substantiates your headline.

    You are coming across a wee bit over-excited, Robert.

  10. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    I want to scream out like the guy in the original “Body Snatchers”. But no one is listening. Why is no one in the political world reading off such a list on Meet The Press, or Face The Nation this morning? Why oh Lord, is Wayne LaPierre not reading this simple list to his audiences (last nites presentation was awful, AND I love Wayne)? Why aren’t there ads being taken out in papers or TV/radio or on the Web? Why are our supposed politicians and spokesmen so inarticulate and fumble in their responses?

    RF and BK you can take pride that you are doing more than anyone I’ve seen during this crisis to bring the message to the people. All who read this have an obligation to email and post this link to the world. It should be like TAKI 183 ! Spread the word !

    • avatarSammy says:

      “I want to scream out like the guy in the original “Body Snatchers”. But no one is listening. Why is no one in the political world reading off such a list on Meet The Press, or Face The Nation this morning?”

      Because martial law will follow the financial collapse. One of the UN’s highest priorities is global population reduction. Civil disarmament, the destruction of the healthcare system, engineered famine, war, social division, financial collapse, are all parts of the program. These factors in part or together will victimize the poorest and largest segment of society first. Planned eugenics. And it seems the central government is more than on board.

  11. avatarThomas Paine says:

    “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” he said in March 2007.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      I find it objectionable that that the post refers to the President as a scholar of the Constitution. He was an adjunct prof for a time, but hasn’t much of a publication history. He eventually voluntarily forfeited his license to practice, for reasons unknown. Of course I still meet people who think he was Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review. I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked.

  12. avatarAnmut says:

    @ RF – where’s the bullet point where TTAG told all of us that already knew this that we were paranoid before this last election? :) Sorry, but I’m still going to rub some salt into that wound so it scars up and is not forgotten.

  13. avatarSeth says:

    “we believe that we can shape an enforcement strategy that slows the flow of guns into mexico” -BHO

    How does Fast and Furious fit into that plan?

  14. avatarDon says:

    I would find information like this useful for congresspeople who are going to be up for election soon. Maybe do some more like this for them? I would also be interested in lists detailing decidely pro gun actions by them.

  15. avatarjwm says:

    Well, duh!

  16. avatarThomasR says:

    Geez people, don’t be so paranoid! that was then, this is now, listen to the words coming out of his mouth, he respects the second amendment and he’s not trying to take our guns away, (head shake and eye roll).

    Oh, wait a minute! What was the saying about what you can tell when a politicians lips are moving?

  17. avatarMister Fleas says:

    Your article neglected to mention that Obama was once head of the Joyce Foundation, the anti-NRA.

  18. avatarsagebrushracer says:

    No Hope, No Dreams, No Change.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Not even spare change. Great post. I used to dig out change to pay for trifles, telling cashiers, “HERE’S some change you can believe it!”

      Blank looks, ever seen ‘em?

  19. avatarnonnamous says:

    “Obama is basically pro-gun, guys! You’re paranoid.” RF, 2012.

    It’s a bit late for this.

  20. avatarMister Fleas says:

    Oh, and by the way: where was this article when Obama was running for President last time?

  21. avatarRalph says:

    He’s also coming after C&R rifles.

    “Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of dangerous
    weapons simply because of their age: ATF is required to authorize the importation of certain “curio or relic” firearms, and outdated regulations include all firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago in the definition of “curio or relic.” But today, firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago include large numbers of semiautomatic military-surplus rifles, some of which are easily convertible into machine guns or otherwise appealing for use in crime. Congress should get rid of restrictions that prevent ATF from changing this definition, enabling ATF to ensure that firearms imported as curios or relics are actually of interest as collectibles, rather than letting these rules be used as a way to acquire fully functional and powerful military weapons.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

    So bend over and kiss your Garands goodbye.

  22. avatarRetired 3rd Infantry Grunt says:

    Obama and his jack booted henchmen are the single greatest threat to the sovereignty of our country. He is clearly the ENEMY FROM WITHIN

  23. avatarGyufygy says:

    Well, when you put it that way…

  24. avatarPublius says:

    Given the difference in level of force that BHO & Co. can wield, and that which any of us can wield, I’d say you’re being wise to assume the worst of him. In other words, never assume he’s dealing good faith in situations such as this.

    In fact, you could even say the entire Constitution is built around the idea that government isn’t to be trusted.

  25. avatarLance says:

    Took you this long RF to know Obama is a Fascist PIG!!!! Home work man!!!

  26. avatarAnon in CT says:

    I assume this post is meant as a mea culpa on the part of Robert and others?

  27. avatarTama Paine says:

    I would have liked to see footnotes on all of these. I can’t pass them along to former media colleagues without that documentation, and I don’t have the time to fact check each one. There are a lot of reporters who really would like to be educated on this stuff, but “our” “side” coming up with lists of undocumented (ahem) facts simply won’t be very useful to those of us in the trenches.

  28. avatarMan-of-Reason says:

    Let’s see. You clowns think that although the Supreme Court recently ruled that the second amendment guaranteed your right to own firearms, somehow the President will defy the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold, and take those guns away. Do you honestly think he has that authority or that he can persuade the military, who’s officers greatly favor guns and themselves are sworn to uphold the Constitution, to do such bidding? Go back to Civics class and read about, “Separation of Powers”. Your paranoid ignorance is as absolutely astounding as it is dangerous in a democracy.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.