[HTML1]
Barack Obama has not been an anti-gun president. His administration’s only tangible move against Second Amendment rights: the recently implemented long gun registry for some 8500 U.S. gun dealers in border states. Created by imperial fiat Executive Order, the long gun registry gives the ATF free license to trample on federal law (the Firearm Owners Protection Act) prohibiting ANY government gun registry. Otherwise, nada. When it comes to “is the president keeping away from the 2a third rail?” American gun rights groups won’t take “yes” for an answer. They believe—or say they believe to raise cash for the cause—that a re-elected Obama will be a gun grabber unleashed. Their most compelling evidence . . .
An off-hand remark made to the Brady Campaign during a White House meeting after a crazed gunman shot 20 people, killing six people and wounding Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Supposedly, President Obama said his administration was “working [on gun control measures] under the radar.”
TTAG called bullshit. The quote came from the most dubious of all sources: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. As the Brits would say, they would say that wouldn’t they? Just as the NRA needs anti-anti-gun hysteria to keep their coffers full, the Brady Campaign needs some glimmer of gun grabbing hope to justify their existence.
The tampabaytimes.com has decided to do a little fact checking on the now infamous quote:
Relying on a secondhand quote of Obama — relayed to Washington Post by gun control advocate Sarah Brady — the NRA claimed that “Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ ”
The genesis of the quote is a brief 2011 White House meeting between Obama, Brady, her husband Jim, and former Brady Center [sic] to Prevent Gun Violence president Paul Helmke.
Helmke told PolitiFact there was no promise from Obama on gun policy, and certainly no dramatic pledge to come for anyone’s firearms.
Likely, the president was talking about an in-the-works program to get gun dealers in border states to forward some gun purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Helmke said.
Brady told us her quote has been misinterpreted and that she herself never spoke with Obama about gun policy. “What ever I might have said or agreed to was purely speculative as I never spoke to the president myself about this issue,” she said.
Whatever was said and what it was referring to is murky, but the NRA took a fragment of an unclear quote and prescribed the most far-reaching, conspiratorial conclusion — when there simply isn’t enough evidence for such a sweeping claim. We rated that claim Pants on Fire.
Roger that. And shame on Sarah Brady to allow the made-up quote to remain in play despite the fact that she knew it was a complete fabrication (most likely by herself). But then why would we expect the antis to tell the truth about guns?
Wayne LaPierre wrote that the Obama administration plans to “Prosecute a full-scale, sustained, all-out campaign to excise the Second Amendment from our Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders, judicial fiat, international treaties—in short, all the levers of power of all three branches of government.”
It seems that the antis are not the only ones who engage in a bit of hyperbole, or out-and-out fiction.
“It seems that the antis are not the only ones who engage in a bit of hyperbole, or out-and-out fiction.”
Agreed. One of a number of reasons I am not a member of the NRA.
I love to debate gun issues with antis, when they make snide NRA remarks I reply that I do not belong to the NRA and could we please focus on data from the CDC and NAS ( I work in a health care facility).
NukemJim
I think the NRA does some good, but I only joined for one specific reason. I’m going to join one of the two big outdoor private ranges near me soon, and they both require NRA membership for range membership. It’s a means to an end, nothing more.
And LaPierre’s job is to GET MORE MONEY FOR THE NRA. He’s nothing more than a sleazeball car salesman.
“Sleazeball car salesman” sounds repetitive to me.
And arguably the most effective gun rights lobbyist in the nation for the last two decades. But other than that, go ahead and call him names.
Seriously, I don’t understand the hatred some people have for him. What – he’s not extremist enough for you? He dared to compromise? Do you think an extremist who never compromised ever gets doors opened for him in Washington?
Get real. Time to sit down and think long and hard where we’d be without him.
What about this as another reason to have a membership: NRA is the sanctioning body for competition. What, you’ve never been to nationals? You’re missing out.
Yes.
truth.
Fueling conspiracy theories and reaching for the gasoline-filled fire extinguisher only helps to swell both their ranks. Disgraceful.
Anyone who thinks that man won’t go full tilt after guns in a second term has their head firmly implanted in the sand.
+1.
+2
I know what RF is getting at, and I understand how web traffic is monetized, and I even (somehow, considering I am apparently a stupid redneck clinging to my guns and religion) understand how and why Obama probably will not go after gun owners if he is re-elected. All that being said, there is no compelling reason not to be worried.
I don’t think he will, at least no more than he did in the first term. And no, I don’t think he’s sympathetic to 2A rights, but he’s enough of a politician to see the 2010 elections and realize that anything real on the gun-control front will bring the mongol horde of gun nuts (Sgt. Grabow, 1st Gun-nuttery Battalion here) shrieking out of the woodwork and doom his presidency to dealing with that issue and nothing else. Plus, after Heller, he’d likely just get slapped down anyway. I’m not voting for the guy, but not over any 2A worries, it’s the rest of his policies I disagree with. I think people are getting lathered up over nothing. Obama already ran his risky gambit with Health Care, and that’s going to define his presidency. I don’t think he’ll attempt another, second term or no.
I don’t think he’s push for any serious legislation, but he proved yesterday that he’s willing to do damn near anything via executive fiat. Once he’s safely reelected, he’d happily push all manner or regs and policies to attack gun rights. Sure he’s be screwing up his party’s electoral chances, but he’s already proven that he doesn’t mind doing that.
Actions speak louder than words, folks.
The Heller decision did NOT go the way it should have. It should have been an 8 to 1 decision (eberybody knows that you just can’t get any sense out of Bader-Ginsberg). It was 5 to 4. Four justices on our highest court don’t think the 2A applies tomindividuals. Not one or two crazies, but FOUR. Including BOTH the judges put up by our marxist POTUS.
Ignore the words from both sides. Actions speak louder than words.
Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagen, square that with not being actively anti 2a. Now imagine him appointing a couple more and tipping the balance firmly liberal. We can than kiss Heller goodbye. And the kissing won’t be stopping there.
it’s not about the figurehead, it’s about the party. even if obama honestly intends no action against gun owners as long as he holds the office he gives strength to the boxers, schumers, reids et el of his party. this is why i stopped voting democrat so many years ago and will not vote for them until they collectively stop trampling on my rights. are the nra and republican party sin free? of course not. but overall they help more than they hurt in this cause.
Well I can say the following:
We have a bill before the UN which is totally wacked, and Obama hasn’t shot it down.
We have an executive order for an illegal registry and reporting for border state FFL’s.
We have Law after law going on state books effecting all of us, and no one seems to be putting a stop to it.
Ok I get it states kinda do what they want but then again that is part of the problem. CA or DC is one thing, but how about states who have open carry in some areas, and some cities not so much. That seems silly. The laws are so complex it makes it hard for anyone to either keep up or follow them.
1: The UN. We don’t run it. And we don’t have to ratify every bill they pass. Blaming the president for not “killing” a bill that 191 other countries are voting on is rather silly. No UN gun ban will ever pass the Senate, at least at no time in the next fifty years.
2: The executive order is bad and should be fought, and is being fought. And it will probably be struck down eventually. But it’s pretty limited stuff, certainly nothing on the level of an AWB.
3: State laws really can’t be attributed to the feds. Obama has nothing to do with state legislatures and governors. And post-Heller a ton of state laws have been struck down. That front is actually doing pretty well. Most states are moving in the direction of more 2A freedom, not less (with the exception of New England/NY and Cali).
4: Your complaint is well noted, and I agree, but the solution is to work at the state level to get stupid laws changed, not bitch at the president, who has nothing whatsoever to do with those things. Here in Michigan we’re working to repeal the “purchase permit” law and the SBR ban. Our PP repeal just passed the state House and is headed to the Senate. Look up mate, we’re winning. Cheers!
True while the UN idea is still that, the point is no one will actually adhere to it. To that end could other countries penalize us because we do not adhere to it? I don’t know, but I don’t think the idea should ever come to fruition. To that end I can’t site any specifics as I have not read it, but others have reviewed the rough drafts, and they are pretty restrictive.
As far as States laws are concerned. Obama hasn’t done things and yes state entities are working hard fighting to get the huge amount of laws on the books overturned.
However much like Mitt Romney’s speech it lacked substance. While I don’t expect a president to specifically demand the states of anything there are some very important things that can be done. One would let the Federal AWB law to go away. Second would be to challenge state AWB laws, and also the interstate commerce laws on the books as unfair to businesses. While he may not do this through executive order it can be a directive given to others within federal and state legislatures.
What “bill” is this before the UN that you’re talking about?
The one about controlling gun / ammo / accessory manufacture, sales, and ownership. It’s so bad that around half the senate (I THINK it was 57 members, but I’m not positive off the top of my head) including Democrats wrote Obama / Hillary a letter reminding them that the UN does NOT override the US Constitution.
Even though a UN treaty would not override the constitution it would still give more power to the anti’s trying to cooperate with the rest of the world and firearms and ammunition aren’t all made in the U.S. That said making international trade harder would hurt us here even if we decided not to recognize the treaty.
What about it is so bad? Can you cite even a single provision? You can’t because it doesn’t exist yet, not even in draft form.
Sure, a bunch of different member states and NGOs all have their various wishlists on what they think the treaty ought to look like. And that’s exactly what they are- wish lists. I personally favor a provision that provides me with an 80′ yacht crewed by Victoria’s Secret models. Fingers crossed!
About a year ago, either Newsweek or Time magazine (I cant remember which) did a big article about this issue and confirmed that gun control was going to be a hot second term issue. Specifically, they listed three things that Obama & Co. would go after: (1) a new AWB, (2) a high-cap mag ban, and (3) to close the so-called “gunshow loophole,” which to say that they would seek to impose a requirement that all private sale of firearms, including used firearms, be conducted with government paperwork, background check, etc. Most surprisingly, and disheartening, the article cited sources that said, among other things, that Republicans would not fight Obama on these three particular issues.
Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. Especially the part about Republicans not fighting it. Come on guy, we spend our days on this site noting the abject lack of any coherent thought in the mainstream media, and you think they got something that far out correct?
Look at the anti-gun bastard the Republicans nominated and tell me with a straight face that the Republicans actually want you to keep your guns.
This.
That was probably Newsweek. They’re pretty much the MSNBC of magazines.
1st: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean somebody’s not out to get you.
2nd: Obama’s appointment of various anti-gun persons to important positions is under the radar enough for folks that aren’t watching out for the 2nd amendment.
Hey maybe we’re misinterpreting the Fast and Furious scandal. Maybe it wasn’t a big conspiracy to enable the enactment of more gun control laws. Obama & Holder are purposefully allowing these crazy conspiracy rumors to persist so that the anti-gun crowd thinks they really are doing something to ban guns. That’s why they won’t release the documents to the congressional investigation. They don’t want their far-left base to know that they’re doing nothing to restrict guns. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Plus, when the documents do come out it makes the pro-gun conspiracy theorist look really crazy. Checkmate.
Excuse me now, I’ve got to adjust the aluminum foil in my hat.
The President has appointed hundreds of judges so far, everyone of them is no doubt a living breathing affront to the 2A. Voting for any national Democrat is effectively voting for judges that despise the 2A.
I am very confused right now. I truly haven’t seen anything considerable to the obama admin to say they’ve been ‘anti-gun’. They made one law that was backed by the ATF for border control. Makes no difference to anyone who legally owns a gun. But that video up top… Wow. I feel like I was watching a conspiracy theory film. It had segments chopped and some input with others and it seems unfair honestly. That’s like taking bill Clinton’s famous “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” quote and taking out the ‘not’ just to be anti-Clinton. Im understanding to a pro-gun president (among other values) but to make videos like that, which are based off of false quotes, just seems like dirty fighting. I want the truth. The facts. Not conspiracy theories. So TTAG writers, before you post more anti-Obama articles, please do us a favor and make sure it’s credible!!! Thanks!
Did you actually read any of the article after you watched the video?
I call bullshit on you calling bullshit.
shame on Sarah Brady to allow the made-up quote to remain in play
She let it remain in play because Obama said what he said. She’s now taking it out of play because — you may have read about this — there’s a Presidential election coming up in a few months and it’s starting to look like it might be close.
After wasting all his political capital on Obamacare and dragging his party down to a horrible defeat in the midterm elections and maybe another defeat at SCOTUS, I didn’t expect Obama to try for any antigun legislation before a second term. After the election, he’ll be a lame duck (if re-elected) and all bets are off. And POTUS won’t need to look to Congress for help, either. The man just changed our immigration policy by royal decree. He’ll do the same to gun policy if he has the chance.
Consider Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama’s record in the Illinois state Senate, plus the 2A prevailing legislation in his home town of Chicago. The Democrats widely believe that the 2A issue swung enough voters to tip the election from Al Gore, which is why they’ve been relatively quiet on this in recent years. An unbridled be reelection concerns Obama will revert to form, and consider yesterday’s partial immigration amnesty by fiat executive order as a possible template.
Finally, read the book “Radical in Chief” by Stanley Kurtz — only partially for what it discloses about Barry’s background — but more so for its expose of the long-term strategy of “non-reformist reforms” to transform the USA into (at a minimum) a socialist system.
Beyond 2A, anyone who values this country as established should be afraid, very afraid, of what a second Obama term will do to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”
Obama is not going to do a damn thing about guns and it’s because of guys like me.
That HUGE uptick in gun sales we’ve all been talking about is not a bunch of Bubba folk deciding to add a sixteenth AR to the fold. People who traditionally vote for Democrats because they feel stongly about issues of social justice are also realizing that guns have an important (and fun) place in our lives. Guess what y’all? Guns are being normalized in to the culture. So now you’ve got a section of the voting demographic who will still vote for a Democrat because they agree with the social platforms, but who are also strong 2A supporters. Obama sees this perfectly, so quit worrying about it.
Or don’t. Pump some more money in to the NRA’s coffers if it makes you feel better.
Right on brother. I may not vote with you, but if you and your fellow Dems can keep gun control off the table, we all owe you a debt.
+1
I know you are out there, and that this is a waxing trend. My best friend is a lifelong Democrat, and is now as pro 2A as I am.
I like to think it is an indication that the D vs. R dichotomy is beginning to break under the strain of the situation we find ourselves facing (continued economic difficulties/looming budgetocalypse) but that remains to be seen.
+2
I’m a Berkeley born liberal who’s as gun crazy as any down south conservative. I’ve spoken to plenty of guy’s who think like me at ranges around the bay area. I agree with Swarf, we are a growing faction of the left.
People who traditionally vote for Democrats because they feel stongly about issues of social justice
Two things:
1) Do you really think political parties in the US give a rats ass what you care about?
2) It’s always nice to admit to violating people’s rights. Tell me, what is just about using one person as a slave for the profit of another?
1. Not much, but I pick my poison just like everybody else, and for my vote, the Repuclians are on the wrong side of history over and over. Your mileage may vary and I’m always willing to have my mind changed by strong argument.
2. What the hell are you talking about?
I’m disappointed when the NRA gets so nakedly partisan. I expect and want them to be all over F&F and anything else the government is actually doing. I don’t want them engaged in hypotheticals and political rumormongering just to influence an election.
As Muckfire suggested, the real concern here is the courts. The next president will nominate at least two justices to the Supreme Court, possibly more, and the two I have in mind both voted with the majority on Heller and McDonald. Do you imagine that Obama will replace them with judges who favor gun rights? Executive policies come and go, but court rulings last.
They do at that, and Heller is a good one.
Well, I think it’s clear the next to retire will be Ginsburg, who is the oldest and in failing health. Kennedy and Scalia are a few years younger, but Breyer isn’t far behind them. None of the last three have any immediate heath problems that I know of. I think if Obama gets elected again he’ll be treading water just to keep the Supreme Court more of less balanced as it is now.
Scalia’s been on there the longest of the current group, followed by Kennedy. Besides which, it would be better to trade an opponent of gun rights for a supporter than to hope merely to maintain the current numbers.
Besides which, it would be better to trade an opponent of gun rights for a supporter
Greg, given Obama’s previous nominations, what are you smoking to make you think he’d nominate someone who supports the Constitution in general, let alone the 2nd amendment?
How long they’ve been serving hasn’t got anything to do with it. There are no term limits; it’s a lifetime appointment. So the real question is “how are they holding up” and right now Ginsburg is the only one with significant publicized health problems.
Totenglock, I figured it was clear that someone other than Obama will have to nominate better justices with regard to the Second Amendment.
As I’ve said to Tim McNabb, and written here. Obama is a politician plain and simple, no matter what side of the isle he votes from, he will not harm the chances of his party in future elections by enacting or EO any anti gun policies. Yes he would be a lame duck in his second term, but if he were to lean far left on guns or whatever the left wants, it would be the demise of the democratic party for decades. And he won’t do that! Look at Bill Clinton, in his first term he tried to legislate from the left, but found that was a disaster and started working with the right, all the way into and including his last days in office. And do remember, Bush (43) had all three branches of government in his control for six years, and all he did was let the AWB expire. Doesn’t say much for the “right” looking out for our gun rights!
The anti’s floated a lot of test balloons after the Giffords (God bless her) shooting. They didn’t see an appreciable shift in opinion on an AWB. The same thing happened when the Administration took office and immediately began talking about the “Iron River” into Mexico *GASP*. They will keep testing the water, and throwing stuff at the wall to see if something sticks. If it doesn’t, and trends indicate they won’t, expect more of the same.
If they got any indication of an anti argument gaining traction, however, don’t kid yourself that a lifelong gun-banner like Obama has “come to Jesus” on the 2nd Amendment, and would do anything to protect gun rights.
Inaction does NOT equal assent or approval.
I do hope that trends continue, and gun control continues to fall off of the DNC core issues list…..I’m just going to need a bit more convincing.
Obama’s Secret Gun Control plan! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!
Dick Morris talking about Obama’s secret plans for a UN Small Arms Treaty to take away our handguns and our Second Amendment Rights
Dick Morris doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Can he cite the specific language of the treaty that does what he claims? No. Nobody can, because it doesn’t exist yet. They’re meeting in July.
He also contradicts himself when he says the treaty would be implemented “without Congress”, but then admits it would require Senate ratification. The Senate is part of Congress, the last time I checked. And I don’t know how he figures they would get a 2/3 majority in the Senate to accept such a treaty, either.
I also love the part about how “these threats are so immediate” that they couldn’t wait until this summer to release their book. Here’ s a quick rundown on the timeline for this treaty:
2006: Secretary-General solicits the views of member nations regarding a possible treaty on the international small arms trade.
2007: Secretary-General presents his report containing the responses from 2006.
2009: The General Assembly resolves to convene a conference to develop a small arms treaty in 2012 and establishes a preparatory committee.
July 2010: First meeting of the preparatory committee.
Feb 2011: Second meeting of prep committee.
July 2011: Third meeting of prep committee.
Feb 2012: Fourth meeting of prep committee.
That’s right, they’ve been talking about this thing for six years and they still have yet to begin actual negotiations on the text of the treaty.
Dave, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/26/democrats-oppose-obama-un-gun-control-treaty
67 Senators, including 12 Democrats, wrote Obama & Hillary a letter reminding them that a UN treaty cannot override the US Constitution. But I guess those Senators are just uninformed racists too, right?
Who said anything about racists? Also, I don’t think the Senators are unaware that there is no treaty text as such. They just know a significant part of their constituency believes this nonsense and they’re making a meaningless gesture for the purpose of political grandstanding.
Dave, are you really claiming that Senatorswould spend time drafting a statement to the President about a non-existent political issue? If it wasn’t real, they’d simply come out as a group and say “There is no such treaty” instead of Republicans and Democrats coming together to warn Obama that an anti-gun treaty won’t be able to disarm the US.
As for the racist comment? It’s because your entire argument is that any gun owner worried about Obama and the UN treaty is just stupid (and most likely racist since they don’t like Obama).
Nobody can, because it doesn’t exist yet. They’re meeting in July.
Of course it exists. There’s probably been twenty or thirty drafts of this treaty — none of them final. What do you think they’re meeting about?
Twenty or thirty drafts? Drafted by whom? Can you show me even one?
That’s the purpose of this July Conference – to come up with this draft.
Can you show me even one?
Of course not. The Master of Transparency doesn’t want the treaty to see the light of day before the election.
Do you actually believe that the nations could actually meet without having something to meet about? C’mon, man.
Ralph,
Well, certainly they all have their competing versions of what they want. For the last several years they’ve been collecting and revising these position papers. None of these is properly called even a draft of the actual treaty.
The closest thing to that which exists is the Chairman’s Draft Paper, the latest version of which can be found here.
The Feds are making their moves with other agencies, the EPA and the Department of Labor. Look for more shooting ranges being shut down for environmental or workplace safety reasons.
They believe—or say they believe to raise cash for the cause—that a re-elected Obama will be a gun grabber unleashed
Rob, I know for a fact you know how to use Google and Youtube. Obama said many, many times before he took
the throneoffice that he wanted to re-instate the scary looking weapons ban and make it permanent as well as many other anti-gun desires. Just because the guy’s smart enough to know that he’d never get elected if he went after guns since he threw away all of his political points on Obamacare and the laughingly named “stimulus” package doesn’t mean that he’s not anti-gun. He has plenty of interviews and speeches where he makes it perfectly damn clear that he’s anti gun and most, if not all of them, are recorded and online for anyone to watch.Yes, he had one comment that people skewed (and I always assumed that comment was twisted from what was really said), but that doesn’t change his documented anti-gun record. It always astounds me when gun owners start doing the gun-grabbers work for them.
What politicians say when running for office and what they actually do after taking office are two different things altogether. At least most of us know that campaign rhetoric is unreliable; poltical realities, as noted by other commentators here, are the most compelling evidence. And the fact is that neither the democrats nor the republicans will back gun control legislation–and there can be no doubt that the President is well aware of this political reality. A this stage, he does not have the political capital to get the laws changed, and more importantly, he does not have the needed majority in the House to get legislation out of committee much less passed.
I’m going to disagree with you on this one. I look at what Obama voted for when he was in the Illinois Senate, and I look at the people he has appointed to Federal agencies, and the people who are his friends in politics. I remember his early White House web site posting promising to restore the Clinton AW ban, and promising “reasonable” gun control. The total package is anti-gun. And do you seriously think that if the NRA had NOT gone after him on the 2nd Amendment that he would have been “pro-gun”? Sorry, I think he would do whatever he could get away with. Without the pro-gun groups constantly beating the drum, the Democrat party of today would cheerfully trash the 2nd Amedment. I have watched them for the last 50 years, and they are consistently on the side of the anti- self-defense crowd. I do not trust any of them.
Well, I am officially done with this site. That Robert Farrago considers himself to be a supporter of the Second Amendment is laughable. Having an axe to grind against the NRA is one thing, not everyone agrees with them including myself, but to write something of this ilk is ridiculous.
“His administration’s only tangible move against Second Amendment rights: the recently implemented long gun registry for some 8500 U.S. gun dealers in border states.”
Apparently Fast and Furious never happened. Apparently Obama did not appoint Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, two justices that are on record for being anti-firearm. Apparently the US has not withdrawn their official opposition to an Arms Trade Treaty. Apparently Richard Traver was not nominated by Obama to head the BATFA. I guess I just made those things up.
“Helmke told PolitiFact there was no promise from Obama on gun policy, and certainly no dramatic pledge to come for anyone’s firearms.”
That is your well-reasoned evidence that Obama did not make a statement? A statement that was largely not disputed until election polling began showing a tight race was finally disputed by Helmke and Brady, so we should believe them? Two political allies of the Obama administration changed their story in an attempt to shield Obama from public ire, and that makes it the truth? Under your view of the Obama administration, I suppose you believe that Holder is telling the truth when he states that neither he, nor any other upper-level member of the Department of Justice did not know anything about the Fast and Furious program?
“They believe—or say they believe to raise cash for the cause—that a re-elected Obama will be a gun grabber unleashed.”
So you don’t believe that Obama, who is facing his last election, would not attempt to implement some of his, and his party’s, favored policies to restrict the Second-Amendment despite on-record statements such as:
“I’ll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training.” (Quote from the Chicago Defender Feb. 20, 2001)
“There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family,’ Obama said. ‘We’re limiting handgun sales to one a month. We’re calling for handgun registration” (Quote from the Chicago Defender July 7, 2001)
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could get shot during altercations” (Quote from the Pittsburg Tribune Review April 2, 2008)
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters. (ABC News Feb. 25, 2009) Quote from Eric Holder.
“I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller,” Holder said. (ABC News Feb. 25, 2009) Quote from Eric Holder.
Further, his votes on gun related issues:
Voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act.
Voted for an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act which would categorically classify .223, .308, and 7.62×39 FMJ ammunition as armor-piercing.
Voted to repeal the Taihrt Amendment.
Sounds like a friend of the Second Amendment to me and a man that I want to trust with my rights. Or, it sounds like a politician that will use their influence to do anything to get re-elected, including get their allies to change their story. A politician that has already shown that he is willing to use, or circumvent congress to pass an unpopular agenda because he believes it is right. Robert Farrago, you say shame on Sarah Brady, I say shame on you.
So goodbye TTAG, your seemingly blind hatred for the NRA and inability to write a truthful argument where they are concerned has lost you a reader, and customer.
I am officially done with this site.
Officially done? We didn’t even know that you officially started.
Really Ralph? You’re going to complain about that sentence while ignoring all the evidence he provided that supports WHY he’s fed up with Rob?
I’m not complaining about it. As you saw, I disagree with RF’s post completely. But when some guy you and I have never heard of because he’s never commented before wants to make a granstanding statement that he’s going home and taking his marbles with him, I just think it’s just plain silly.
During a town hall Q&A with audience members free to ask questions, someone asked him (during his first campaign) – “what about renewing the AWB?”
“We can’t get it done right now.” He responded.
I’m not a big fan of the NRA myself at times, but at least in size and scale they are the juggernaut of RKBA
This article is truly lame. Ralph is right as usual Farago. I call double bovine excrement on your bovine excrement of an article. “Barack Obama has not been an anti-gun president” you say. It would be more accurate to say that His Highness hasn’t been a successful anti-gun president. The man obviously has an oppressive view about Second Amendment rights. There are quotes aplenty proving it. And then there is the awkward fact of his voting record as a legislator. Like the other Oligarchs who run his party Obama seems to think gun rights exists only in ones home, and they admit that only grudgingly. Does that idea seem reasonable to you Farago?
It really is beside the point to argue in a very narrow sense that since His Majesty has only managed a teensy bit of gun control as president, therefore he isn’t anti-gun. Here are the operative facts based upon a wealth of evidence. Obama is an anti-gun president. He was an anti-gun U.S. senator. He was an anti-gun state senator. He was an anti-gun community organizer. I bet he was an anti-gun law review editor too. Just because political exigencies prevent him being successfully anti-gun now doesn’t change that.
What’s your game here anyway Mr. Farrago? Do you just write articles like this to prove how naive you are or is it all about web traffic? An exercise in shark jumping maybe? If you really believe what you wrote above then you are a major league sucker. Please, for the sake of your readers, wise up!
P.S. Mitt Romney sucks too.
Do you just write articles like this to prove how naive you are or is it all about web traffic?
Careful, Chief or you might be struck by the banhammer.
Oh well, $hit happens. I’m sure the earth will continue to turn on it’s axis if this website is deprived of my impolitic opinions.
C’mon. You guys know that no flame = no ban. Everybody on this site is free to disagree with anything here, as long as it’s done right. And Dyspeptic done it right.
Obama’s smart enough to not do anything that will hurt other Democrats’ chances of getting elected. Uh huh. He’s such a great politician, that’s why the Democrats did so well in 2010.
He campaigned as an anti 2A candidate (restore the sport utility rifle ban). He actually voted in the Illinois legislature occasionally, and was consistently extremely anti RKBA.
As a wise man once said “prediction is difficult, particularly of the future.” But based on his past, there’s plenty of evidence he could try to go medieval on the Second Amendment’s ass in his second term.
I’m no NRA sycophant, and they’re probably a little over the top on this. But it’s a non-zero probability, and certainly worth preparing for.
What drives me crazy are when his two small “pro-gun bonafides” are brought up by his defenders – Amtrak and National Parks.
These were measures tacked onto largely unrelated legislation, and really just “re-authorized” gun rights that had been previously decremented in those two situations.
If Obama has no anti-gun agenda, let him say so. Given his record for honesty and transparency, I’d believe him completely.
“What ever I might have said or agreed to was purely speculative as I never spoke to the president myself about this issue,”
So I’m expected to believe that they talked about the weather?
At last! A nice hardy MEH for gun rights. Way to straddle the fence boys.
I look fact Obama still supporting Eric Holder through Operation Fast and Furious. Same Eric Holder who blame gun dealers and gun owners for Operation Fast and Furious. Same Eric Holder testify many in Oversight Committee hearing that if there where more stronger gun control laws pass make his job so much easyer. Obama just defund bill that congress pass would have stop any Operation Fast and Furious from ever happen again. Obama pass judgement George Zimmerman’s case before even been investgate now sending Fbi agents all gun stores round where lives to find some dirt on him. That story post some where here. Than there all spechs made buy Obama before Operation Fast and Furious blame gun dealers gun owners for arming mexcian drug dealers . All proof need that Obama is for gun control see what happing in Oversight Committee hearing on Operation Fast and Furious.
Well if THIS website says it ain’t so then I guess it can’t be so……..
…yawn….
10 months after this was posted….. How do you feel now?
It’s easy to say “I told you so” after the fact, except I don’t see your name anywhere else in this thread, and even if I did, it wouldn’t apply here. The main points of this article are still factually correct. Obama had not been, at that point, an anti-gun president. And the under the radar “quote” was a fabrication. Those were the points of this post, and they remain as valid today as the day they were written.
By your own admission: ‘ Obama had not been, at that point, an anti-gun president…’ Sounds more like when a bully hits a kid and then apologizes by saying, ‘I’m sorry you made me do that to you.’ No apology, no admission to being wrong, it implies an overly inflated ego that cannot bare the burden of being at fault.
Mr aNinny Mouse, like millions of Americans who knew this was his plan from day 1, has the right to say, ‘I TOLD YOU SO!’