Barak Obama's Gun Control Positions
Examining Obama's Gun Control Policies in His Own Words
In 2000, Barak Obama cosponsored a bill that would have limited the purchase of handguns to one per month. That may not sound significant, but the truth is, such a bill would impede the rights of law abiding citizens. There is no justifiable reason to limit the ability of people who have no criminal record from purchasing any legal fire arm. Obama at the same time also voted against allowing people to violate local fire arms bans even in the case of self protection. What does that mean in application? Criminals who are already breaking the law have nothing to worry about, because Obama has made sure that law abiding citizens cannot carry a weapon to protect themselves against those criminals.
According to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test of July 2, 1998, Obama also supports the banning of all semi-automatic weapon sales and transfers. When most people hear "semi-automatic weapon", they think of the gun in the hand of the gang banger. That may be true, but there are a lot of other guns that are semi-automatic, which would also be included in such bans. Shotguns, for example, that are used by bird hunters would fall under the ban. The only reason to try to ban a whole class of gun, with such a wide stroke, is to start the progression of banning all guns eventually.
Perhaps, Obama let the cat out of the bag on his intentions this year at the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 15. He was asked this question: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? His answer? "I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement." Notice, he didn't say he didn't want to license and register all gun owners. That is exactly what he wants to do. It is what he tried to do as a state legislator in Illinois. He simply said he didn't think he could get it done. So, he is going to try and achieve the same end through other means. It again sounds good to say that he wants to use "common sense enforcement" when it comes to gun control, but that statement in and of itself is subjective at best.
Obama went on to say, "We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets." The question here has to be, how will he ensure Americans' Second Amendment rights by taking away their rights to buy either certain kinds of guns (which are legal), and by limiting the number of guns that they can buy? After all, those guns used to shoot people down on the streets of Chicago were not purchased lawfully anyway. So, if he succeeds in taking guns (or at least certain kinds of guns) from law abiding citizens, exactly how will that help stop criminals from having them?
Obama has also spoken clearly about his intentions of getting guns out of inner cities. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama had this to say: "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gang banger 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." Obama blames most of these inner city shootings on "unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in the inner city." This phrase comes up a lot when Obama speaks about gun control, but he doesn't really put a finger on what that means. Is it an "unscrupulous gun dealer" who sells a gun that eventually is used in a crime? If that gun dealer sells a gun when he should not-that is when the purchaser is identified as being unable to buy because of a criminal record or a mental defect-then he should be punished to the full extent of the law. But, that is the point! The law already exists to punish these crimes. Enforcing those laws would take care of the "unscrupulous gun dealers". Unfortunately, the tendency has been to identify gun dealers as "unscrupulous" after the fact. If the federal check system does not flag a prospective gun buyer, how can the gun dealer be held accountable for what is done with the gun after the purchase?
Finally, in July of 2005, Obama voted "No" on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. This vote would have kept the gun makers from being sued for crimes committed by guns that they had made. Of course, once the gun leaves the factory, what control do the manufacturers have? The truth is, this is a part of Obama's plan (along with most other national democrats) to put gun makers out of business. After all, if you can't get the guns out of the citizens' hands, then the next step is to get them at the manufacturing level! The logic of going after the gun manufacturers for gun crime could certainly set a dangerous precedent. What would be next? Going after car manufacturers if someone drives drunk and kills someone? Suing baseball bat manufacturers when gang bangers beat someone to death? The list of possibilities is endless. It is ridiculous to allow these manufacturers to be sued because of injury or death caused by the criminal misuse of their products.
Barak Obama has tried to paint an image of himself as being in favor of the Second Amendment, but the examples that have been shown here tell the truth. He is for limiting gun ownership as much as possible, and would like to force all owners to register and be licensed. He blames gun crimes, not on those who commit them, but rather on the manufacturers and gun dealers. He wants those manufacturers and dealers to be sued out of existence. Barak Obama's idea of "gun control" is to take more guns from law abiding citizens. He, like so many other politicians, needs to learn to enforce the laws that are on the books, which will take care of most of the issues surrounding guns today.
Published by Kris B
Kris has been working as a webmaster for several websites, including: www.nanettes.com, www.kcjmarketing.com, and www.skylarstoys.com View profile
- Gun Control Laws current gun control laws, statistics on gun related violence and deaths, why guns are a threat to public health.
-
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barak Obama and Global Warming
California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Barak Obama's national LCFS program are surprising similar to President Bush's 20 in 10 Initiative.
-
How Would a Hillary Clinton - Barak Obama Presidential Ticket Do in the...
the emergence of Barak O'Bama and what could be a historical presidential ticket
- Ted Kennedy Endorses Barak Obama Does the endorsement really matter? Of course it does!
-
Sprint to Iowa Caucus Has Presidential Candidates John Edwards, Barak Ob...
Candidates of both parties are on marathon tours around Iowa as the 2008 presidential caucuses are only one day away.
- Why is Barak Obama so Popular?
- Landmark Case: D.C. Court of Appeals Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
- Barak Obama Says Careful Withdrawal from Iraq on a Deadline is Key
- A Look on Both Sides of Gun Control
- Is Barak Obama the George Bush of the Democratic Party?
- John Kerry's Irrelevant Endorsement of Barak Obama
- Little Known Facts About Barak Obama
|
|
107 Comments
Post a CommentLogic,
your moniker is certainly not accurate. There is nothing "logical" about permitting gun manufacturers to be sued simply for making a product. That question reveals that you have no idea what the problem is. Gun manufacturers are being sued by shooting victims and their families simply because they have been shot, not because of some defect in the gun. The parallel would be that victims of drunk drivers could sue car manufacturers simply because the car was used in the committing of a crime. It is ludicrous on its face.
no one is trying to stop legitimate law suits against companies who have caused injury due to defect in the materials of the product. I'm sure there are a few of those, but it isn't the bulk of the litigation, and certainly not the "in the news" type stories...
so if a gun is manufactured with poor quality because a defect is overlooked, and a good hearted law abiding citizen, like someones father, is killed while hunting due to this.....the gun manufaturer shouldnt be held liable?
Herb, I'm sorry that you have to start out your comments with calling me an "IDIOT", as it certainly detracts from your ability to discuss the matter in a rational way.
however, I will address one thing that you said: "Same with Obama, yet since being elected he has made zero moves towards gun control."
This statement is simply false. He has pushed for further regulations on ammunition, which will make the purchasing of it extremely expensive. And, just in the last couple of months he has pushed for regulations on boarder states to have to report legal gun purchases to the federal government because he wants to limit the number of guns that legal citizens can purchase.
These types of "small steps" is following the pattern of Bill Clinton. Because there are no widespread gun registrations, or confiscations, folks like you claim that nothing is happening. Unfortunately, it is the "weak minded" that are swayed by the argument that
Where do these IDIOTS get the idea that all guns will be taken away? Where does this paranoia come from? I know of no one who wants to take them or thinks this is logical. I hunt, but I hear so much pure unadulterated fear mongering BS on this issue it is lunacy. After Clinton was elected, runs on gun stores. Any major laws? Not really. No black helicopters. Same with Obama, yet since being elected he has made zero moves towards gun control. He is not stupid. He knows he will have Wacos and Oklahoma Cities all over the place. I'm more worried about cameras and searches than I am about my gun rights. Second amendment says we have the right. No one has that much power. He's from U of Chicago. The whole Marxist thing is for paranoid delusionals. NRA is just a marketing tool for manufacturers and it works very well on the weak minded. Every election you have the same runs on gun stores from the people that see boogie men, terrorists and Commies behind every tree.
this is so stupid. Guns shouldn't be controlled. after all we have the right to bare arms taking our guns is Un-American.
if you believe that they should take our guns then maybe you should be a communist
this guy below me is a dunce. he does not know what he is talking about because Obama is against guns i believe. I think trying to make it harder to get a gun in California is a horrible idea being it is extremely difficult in the first place!
Obama has yet to pass a gun law and has no intention to do so. he is not anti-gun. Nor is he anti-gun policy. He wants to make it difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns which would in return put less guns on the streets whether they are aquired legally or illegally. The gun policy for obama is not even close to one of the main issues, those worrying about it are those that worry about it everytime a democrat takes office. It is not every Democrats goal to control guns and I doubt any politician has a goal to get rid of guns completely because well quite frankly thats retarded. The Chicago Tribune has a very nice piece on what Obama has actually done for gun control since taking office. It would definatly enhance your understanding of his plan to read that.
Mark, I know where your coming from, but you have to understand that the ultimate goal is to diminish crime. How can this be done if the criminals are the only ones who still have guns? President Obama is against guns in general simply because he is under the impression that guns kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people (with guns). Another thing is that law abiding citizens shouldn't have to suffer for the wrong doings of others (criminals).
Sorry, mark...i said, "by his own admission, the regulations that he proposes are only a secondary solution because he does not think he can succeed in banning all guns." i should have said, "by his own admission, the regulations that he proposes are only a secondary solution because he does not think he can succeed in licensing and registering all guns." i do want to represent what he said fairly! I would, however, ask folks to look at what registration of firearms has led to in the past...
mark, i appreciate your comment, and agree with much of what you have to say...however, I tried very hard in this article to quote the president (then senator) directly, and therefore not be "very slanted". This president sees guns themselves as the problem, and his agenda is to get rid of the problem. how is regulating my right to buy guns going to keep a criminal from stealing them? by his own admission, the regulations that he proposes are only a secondary solution because he does not think he can succeed in banning all guns. I believe that if the government would concentrate on enforcing the laws that are already in place, the rate of gun crimes (and especially recidivism) would diminish. thanks again for reading, and for the rational comment!