Barack Obama on Gun Control
February 12th, 2007 by Syd
If the Democrats have “gotten the message” on gun control, why is this guy their new “rock star”?
Senator Barak H. Obama, Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator
Position: Keep guns out of inner cities — but inner city violence is also a problem of morality:
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.” Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Position: Ban high capacity semiautomatic handguns:
While Obama suggested there may be a need for restrictions on so-called semiautomatic guns, he contends Democrats must steer clear of alienating “lawful” gun owners. “I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I’m a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family,” Obama said. “It’s hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic.” Source: Radio Iowa
Positions on Gun Control:
- Ban semi-automatics, and impose more restrictions on other types of firearms possession; Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
- Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons;
- Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms;
- Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
- On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to “prevent other states’ laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.” Source
- “I believe we need to renew–not roll back — this common sense gun law,” [The Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban] Source
- Proposes several gun-control laws, including restricting purchases of weapons and ammunition at gun shows, establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory. Source
- Obama said concealed weapons should be allowed for retired police officers and some military personnel.
- “Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own military assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis.” Source
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
- Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
- Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
- Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
- Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
- Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005 Source
“This seems to be a man [Obama] who is absolutely determined to make the world safe for criminals while making sure that law-abiding citizens have no opportunity to defend themselves.” — Alan Keyes. Source
Commenting on the VT massacre, Obama said:
“(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row,” Obama said. “I don’t know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don’t shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn’t be hunting.” Source
Uh, dude, it’s not about hunting. Maybe it’s about being able to defend yourself from maniacs?
Barak Obama’s Voting Record on Gun Control
This page on Gunlaw News includes quotes, voting record and more links to additional resources.
In another place:
Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic “assault weapons” and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.
Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.
Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law. Source
Barak Obama served on the board of the notoriously anti-civil right Joyce Foundation. Source. The Joyce Foundation is the funding source for astroturf anti-gun organizations such at The Gun Guys and The Freedom States Alliance.
On the Washington D.C. handgun ban, Obama said that he:
“…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives.” Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional. Source
Mr. Obama says he’s, “…in it to transform the country.” No thanks, Barak. Think I’ll pass. Your kind of changes I can live without.
Different face, same shtick. Next.
DAL357
[…] Front Sight, Press considers Barack Obama on Gun Control. […]
Here we go again. Another dumb ass thinking about kissing ass and not safety.
The Right to Life presupposes the Right to Self Defense to maintain ones inalienable indiviual right to life and property inviolate against criminal aggression. Without the Right to Self Defense there is no Right to Life or Property.
Thus all laws, rules and regulations which act as an impedement to protecting ones life and property against criminal aggressors deny the Right to Life itself.
It makes no difference to the victim whether the victims Right to Life is violated by a government representative, Republican, Democrat, the color of the violators skin pigmentation, ethnic origin, mystical belief structure, country of origin, knife, louisville slugger, machine gun, semi-automatic rifle,
pistol, shotgun, handgun, rock or vehicle.
All victimless crime laws prevent citizens from the exercise of their Cosntitutionally protected second amendment Rights.
Moreover, all victimless crime anti gun laws punish individuals not for having violated the Rights of any other human being, but on the premise that they “might”!
All individuals running for public office should
be held accountable for their oath of office which requires supporting the U.S. Constitution againt all enemies both foreign and domestic. Thus, should be impeached for proposing or voting for any law which would use the police force of government to violate the inalienable Rights of Citizens enumerated inthe U.S. Contitution.
Voting for any individual running for public office who is known to believe in violating citizens Rights under the color of law does not demonstrate a citizen playing with a full deck.
So Say I,
ROBERT INGRAM POWELL, Ph.D.
w6vro@msn.com
Damn! How could anybody have addressed this any better than Dr. Powell? Kudos!
He couldn’t have put it better. And I want to know how anyone can possibly think that imposing more gun control will stop crime? Like R. I. Powell said, it doesn’t matter if a criminal can get a machine gun, a Daisy Red-Rider, a baseball bat, or a rock, they are still going to do harm. Can’t anti-gunners see that if you take guns away from responsible people, you’re taking away their defense against criminals that won’t obey gun control laws. And even if they do, they will still commit crime with any weapons they can get.
I must say, Dr. Powell gave an excellent and professional response to a touchy subject. I firmly believe in our right of the second amendment, it has been put in place for a reason since 1791. Our right to posses and bear arms. A right my grandfather had and his father before him. A right that I have in the state I reside to protect my family and friends within my own dwelling. Where is my family’s right to life when my doors are locked 24/7 and a non law abiding individual snatches their breath in search of own my personal property? My firearms are registered, the government knows right where I am, why am I being punished for obeying the law while criminals can posses and do what they feel? If this is the only thread that keeps me a Republican then so be it!
[…] Front Sight, Press has published a well-researched article which causes us deep concern about support for Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. […]
The truth is that the world is full of monsters, and some of them need killing, or at least wounding, when they decide to attack person or property with deadly intent. Trust me, law enforcement will get there too late.
Why don’t we just enforce the gun control laws we already have on the books? What’s the difference if my Glock has a magazine that holds 9 rounds as opposed to 14? I could just change clips more often.
Also, nobody really needs a fully automatic AK-47 to protect their person or property. Besides, unless they have proper training, all they would do is hose down the neighborhood and their family members when they try to nail the bad guy. Also, unless one is living out in the middle of nowhere, no city dweller needs armor peircing rounds for their handgun or rifle. Even if they hit the bad guy, the bullet will keep going and blow holes through the walls of the adjacent neighbors homes. These sorts of weapons and ammunition belong only in the hands of military and law enforcement. If we have to worry about them, its anarchy in the streets anyway.
If there is a home intruder intent on death or destruction, why not just go for the old fashioned head shot? Or, here’s an idea, why not use a shotgun with 000 shot in it and a high base load? That’s going to stop anybody, body armor or not. Or how about getting some training on how to handle and lay down accurate fire with a handgun, shotgun or rifle, all of which can be purchased in any sporting goods store or pawn shop (except of course in NYC and now SF) after mandatory waiting period to figure out if the purchaser has a criminal record. Stop the whining.
Well, if your Glock has a magazine capacity of 9 rounds, it’s a rare collector item and I’d like to make you an offer on it.
Second, most gun control laws on the books now are both ineffective and unconstitutional.
Third, no one is talking about fully automatic machine guns. Obama is talking about banning ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC firearms. That would include all Glocks, 1911’s, Ruger 10/22 rifles, and self loading shotguns.
I reserve my right to whine until you get your facts straight.
Well get used to the idea of losing your rights people.Odds are that there will be a democrat elected for president and it doesn’t matter if it’s Barack or Hillary,you can kiss your freedoms good bye..I’m not saying that the republicans are any better either…It’s like this;the problem with a 2 party system is that 1 will win…Vote libertarian !…Hell vote communist…We’d still be better off….Actually,I don’t care who you vote for;I thibnk we’re all screwed anyway..Hitler started out preaching democracy and freedom and on top of that he gave all of his troops a volkswagen…Get my point?My advice is to buy all the high capacity semi-autos you can,while you still can…..Which rights will they take away next??They are already taking people’e homes to build wal-marts and jiffy checks….You can’t hurt the rich man.The only thing you can do is prepare for the worst and pray for the best…
This is super late in the discussion but I just stumbled upon this article and wanted to say that it was well written and informative… Also have to admit that it gave me a different view of Obama, I had been pretty interested in him up to this point, but I will not give up my right to bear arms (or my handguns) to any Tom Dick or Harry, President of the United States or not, just because he thinks it will make America safer. Er… at least… I’ll definitely think twice before voting for him/her. I think it’s absolutely stupid that politicians think that taking away citizen’s rights to a concealed or even home-protection-only handgun will somehow cut down on crime - everyone in these comments are absolutely correct that it will make our world a much safer world for criminals, because they are still going to be able to obtain these weapons - and we will have nothing to fight back with.
P.S. Syd - Glock 27’s have 9-round clips. (9+1, anyway, but it’s still a 9-round clip.) Still, every other Glock I know anything about holds closer to 15… but your post cracked me up and you had some very valid points.
It is amazing how antigunners seem to blame all of society’s ills on firearms used by those who are criminals or those who have lost control of reasoning. It would be fair to say that antigunner’s logic would also fit in blaming the pen for misspelling the words they wrote. To me this is an accurate analogy that fits in describing their rationale. They continue to seek gun abolition in our country. I do not trust politicians that support highly restrictive gun laws and many years ago I declared my voting status as non-affiliate as I have seen politicians in the two major parties sell out gun owner rights or take neutral positions. Sadly a third party that supports gun owner rights has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected. The poiliticians who support gun owner rights in this election have a slim or no a chance of being elected. I just hope the US supreme court upholds the second amendment or otherwise the cliche ” when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” will become reality. When you think about it, the first amendment was paramount to the founding fathers. When you consider the other liberties they could have decided upon, they chose the right for an individual to posess firearms next before those everyday liberties we take for granted. Something to think about.
Every so often comes a new messiah that is going to “change things”. This time it’s Obama. In his arsenal of he wants to begin restricting your rights to bear arms. Not all at once but just let him get his nose under the tent.
These guys never declare war on the guys we need the guns to protect ourselves from. No. It is the guy that does everything right. He works. Pays his taxes. Might even go to church. This guy watches the news and reads the paper and doesn’t feel so safe anymore. He notices the police deal with crime AFTER it is commited. So he gets a weapon to protect him domain. This is the guy Obama is going after. Not the gangbanger that breaks into your house and trys to steal your protection. Obama wants to heal the hole in his heart. Great, do so. Only don’t leave us defenseless while you have the greatest protection man has to offer. What is that your security is carrying? Semi autos? I am shocked. More of that do as I say….I am a little more equal.
Then they want to reduce you to a rifle for your protection. I own both. Rifles are for hunting. Hand guns are for protection from people that mean to harm.
the second amendment should be treated just like every other,
the right to bear arms does not say how many bullets or what kind of arms we can have just that we have the right. Should we sue budweiser or ford for drunk driving? Should we give bottle locks with every bottle? It kills alot more than accidental gun deaths every year. Should we say the first amendment allows free speech only in certain terms. The freedoms we so cherish are attacked everyday The liberals have became what they fought and rebelled against. Morals are iffy with most and their elitist attitude leaves freedom out in the cold. The people i know who own guns are the most patriotic. You don’t have to agree with my views but that is what makes this country what it is we can disagree and that is what truly is under attack.
ROBERT INGRAM POWELL, Ph.D.,
Sir, you rock! Thank you for an extremely well thought-out commentary. Are you familiar with Maryland’s gun laws?
Link here http://www.lcav.org/states/maryland.asp
I will quote the most amusing section for you:
[{Maryland is a “may-issue” state, meaning that the Secretary of the Maryland State Police (“Secretary”) has discretion to issue a permit to anyone seeking to wear, carry or transport a handgun if the applicant demonstrates a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun and has not previously shown a “propensity for violence or instability” that may cause the applicant to be a danger to himself or herself or other persons when possessing the handgun. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §§ 5-303, 5-306(a). “Good and substantial reason” includes a finding by the Secretary that a handgun permit is necessary to protect the applicant against apprehended danger. Section 5-306(a)(5)(ii).}]
Anyway, I have a non-resident CCW license from Florida and Utah. I can carry in 30+ states EXCEPT in Maryland where I live. Here, you have to be well-connected, a business man, a doctor or pharmacist or had been threatened or raped/mugged (with several witness’ statements supporting this) to get CONSIDERED for a permit. The MD AG already opined that there is no right to use a firearm to protect property-yet they only issue you a weapon permit IF you are businessman or doctor or lawyer and/or carry cash. (Who carries cash anymore?) How much $$$ is my family’s life worth? How about my $40K SUV?
Sorry to preach to the choir Sir…I was just wondering of any bullet-proof (pun intended) argument to beat the draconian laws and get a permit in MD? BTW, legal precedents in MD already determined that the 2A does not apply to states…I wonder if the 1A, 4A or 14A do??? Huh?
Thank you and keep the good work!
WHEN will I offer up my rifle or my handgun ?????
AFTER those political persons in power have collected
ALL the gun from those who would do harm with their
guns. First things first. Then let us look at the crime
rate figures. Where is the political POWER when it’s
needed for the law abiding citizens??
DON’T Punish US.
The last thing we need is stricter gun laws - - - find out more about Obama here:
http://barackhusseinobama2008.com
I find it amusing that people blame “inner city” violence and crime on gun owners, yet it’s those of us who go to the lengths to get the license AREN’T the ones doing th crime. I believe that his narrow outlook (limited to Detroit) has jaded him when it comes to the aspects of gun ownership. Plus wouldn’t he be violating amendemt rights in voting for more gun control? Or is it a circumstance of “its nothing until someone points it out” senerio?
Why doesn’t Mr. Obama first think about taking the guns away from radical anti-white terrorist groups like the black panthers? Oh I forgot, they support him.
Where does it stop? If there is to be no limit to weapons should we have the right to carry a portable nuclear weapon should they become available and affordable?
Every civilized society evolves and perfects its laws and regulations based on progress. When the second amendment was written in the bill of rights, guns were:
1- A lot more necessary
2- A lot different than they are now
I believe that most Americans (gun owners and not) are reasonable people. Why not establish reasonable regulation? Do we really want any mentally unstable person to get access to devastating weapons?
I think that the majority of citizens in this country who want a weapon for other reasons than hunting, want it because of protection. Not because they want to commit crimes.
Make it harder for criminals to get access to guns and make it feasible for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Nobody wants to see anymore horrifying pictures of deranged individuals shooting down our innocent children in school. Not the liberals, not the conservatives, not even the NRA.
Lets have a rational discussion - put the emotions aside and find a common sense solution to this endless debate.
My friend’s son is 15 years old. A couple of days ago, he received a temporary membership from the NRA. Never asked for it. This is irresponsible. What if we sent 15 year olds temporary driver’s licenses without training them?
The gun owning rights supporters I know have a great respect for the weapons and the handling of it. We shouldn’t treat the subject lightly and let anyone who feels like it acquire a gun.
This is why I believe common sense regulation is necessary.
Frederic, if you had ever filled out a yellow sheet at a FFL dealer you would know that to purchase a firearm you have to answer the question “have you ever been treated for a mental illness”. If you answer “Yes” you are forbidden from buying a firearm. I’ve been buying firearms for over 30 years and that has always been the case.
I think your statement about the temporary NRA membership is Bull S–t. The NRA is not going to issue a membership to a minor without an adult requesting it and it will not be a free membership.
Art
Hmmmm…a black man who is gun-phobic… Shocking. Sort of like most the jews in Congress… If only these folks weren’t so ignorant of history, they’d understand the racist roots of gun control in this country.
During my first day of range training at the police academy, our instructor said “this is a magazine, not a clip. If you call it a clip in front of me, I’m going to say, a what? until you get it right.” Obviously B. Hussein has done his research and knows what he’s talking about when he refers to “having a 17-clip semiautomatic.” I have lots of MAGAZINES for my various guns, but I don’t have one where I’ve snatched up 17 mags. for just that one gun.
I know this is going to sound rather…un-PC, but in these times, we can’t afford to have anyone besides a conservative white man in the Oval Office. I can’t bring myself to vote for a black man whose first name is Barack, whose middle name is Hussein (didn’t we hang one recently?), and whose last name is Obama, especially after having folks with good, WASPy names like Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc. Honestly, we in white America need to wake up and realize that this country is being pawned off to every grubby hand that begs for a piece of its soul. And it’s time to take back what we have fought so hard to build before we become some third-world cespool!
Frederic - sounds like you need a history lesson, as well. It was “common sense” gun control in Germany that laid the groundwork for the Holocaust. So, keep telling yourself that more laws on paper are going to stop people from committing heinous acts…when the guns have all been banned and you’re the victim of a home invasion at 2 a.m. because the thugs know they can get away with it unresisted, then you can tell me all about “common sense.”