Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama Still Chasing Gun Control

Obama Still Chasing Gun Control

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Gun control has never been a winning issue for Democrats but that hasn’t stopped them from trying. In the wake of the Charleston shootings, Obama is pursuing the issue with renewed vigor.

Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico reports:

Obama: I’m not giving up on guns

SAN FRANCISCO—Wrapping together his frustrations with the country’s continuing problems with racism and his own inability to make progress on gun control in the wake of the South Carolina church shooting, President Barack Obama stood before a bipartisan gathering of mayors here Friday and declared, “It is not good enough simply to show sympathy.”

“The apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism remains a blight that we have to combat together. We have made great progress but we have to be vigilant because it still lingers,” Obama said.

There must be a popular outcry for gun control, Obama said, to change the minds of a Congress that he said he knows right now won’t touch the issue.

“I refuse to act as if this is the new normal or to pretend that it’s simply sufficient to grieve and that any mention of us doing something to stop it is somehow politicizing the problem,” he said.

FOX News pointed out Obama’s political conundrum on Friday night:

Chris Stirewalt of FOX News has more:

Dems confront past failures on gun control

As an orthodox liberal, Obama had always been a proponent of gun control. But it had hardly been a top-drawer concern. For example, when a gunman killed 13 people at an immigration center in Binghamton, N.Y. in April of 2009, Obama called it “senseless violence,” but did not demand that the Democratic-controlled Congress push through gun control.

The Connecticut killings, different in nature and coming as they did when Obama was looking to do more than just defend his legacy, spurred him headlong into the divided Congress with demands for the most sweeping gun control legislation since the Clinton era. Even though the legislation wouldn’t have prevented the shooting had it been in place, gun violence became the animating issue for the Democratic Party.

The legislation was cued up and public pressure was enormous. The daily shouts from television, social media and elsewhere were for action, action, action. But before too long, Democrats lost their nerve. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up killing even a compromise package that would have required background checks at gun shows and for private sales. All the thunder came to naught.

And here we are again.

On the other side of the debate, some gun rights supporters are calling for concealed carry in churches. Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times:

Charleston shooting prompts gun-rights supporters to call for more concealed-carry at churches

He was a young gunman bent on shooting as many worshippers as possible, but Matthew J. Murray never got as far as Dylann Roof, the suspect in Wednesday’s South Carolina church massacre.

Murray had already shot and killed two people in the parking lot when he burst into the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Before he could pull the trigger again, however, the 24-year-old shooter was gunned down by Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard with a concealed-carry permit.

That was eight years ago, but even though Ms. Assam was credited for saving as many as 100 lives that day, a dozen states continue to restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in churches — including South Carolina.

The Emanuel AME Church shooting that left nine dead Wednesday prompted not just a surge in calls from the left for tighter gun-control laws, but also pleas from the right for churches to protect themselves by allowing their parishioners to pack heat.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

You will note that all the socialist candidates are calling for “do something, do something”. But they never id what that “something” is. If the shooter passed a “background” check even with a drug arrest in Feb., then that is a FAILURE of the background check system, and not something “to do”. If they father gave a gift to his 21 y/o son, then that is a failure of the gun law, as giving gifts is allowable. So the “something”/ more, better,faster “background checks” would not STOP the shooter. Omalley is calling for “assault weapons” ban. Pure sophistry, unless you call a semi-auto PISTOL, a common COP GUN, an “assault weapon”.

And the socialists cannot dare speak the next level of “gun control”. The only direction left after “background checks” is Registration/licensing/CONFISCATION. The socialist dream is to “title” every one of the 300 million guns like a car. And TAX them to pay for the massive, ineffective bureaucracy that would have to be created to track each of those “titles”. Once that was accomplished, the socialists simply pass policy that either TAXES guns out of the publics hands or outright confiscates them. Like has already been done in California with the registered “assault weapons” and New York City.

And tell me again, where does a STATE get the POWER to tell a CHURCH what they can and cannot ALLOW on their own PROPERTY!

… allowing their parishioners to pack heat.

Too bad the Washington Times has to blow the story by sounding childish. Pack heat should be expunged from the vocabulary of anyone who’s outgrown, say, his Ninja Turtles phase. People who sound like they get all their information about firearms and defense from TV are not going to impress anyone else with their knowledge or maturity.

Call it “concealed carry”. And put on a damn tie when you talk about it.

Obama never has a solution. But he always has an agenda.

“we have to do something!” they cry, it doesn’t matter if that something will be utterly ineffective, because it’s more important to be seen acting than it is to be seen acting effectively. The public only has a 3 month memory anyway.

There is not one gun control proposal made in the last 50 years that would have done a single thing to stop this racist nutbar from shooting up the church.

Background checks: He lied on his 4473 (a crime) and passed the background check.

Concealed carry restrictions: He did not have a license, and SC is not yet a constitutional carry state. (crime 2)

Gun Free Zones: Houses of worship are GFZs without explicit authorization from the pastor (crime3)

Magazine limits: He reloaded 6 times and used a large-caliber handgun. 10 or 13 rounds per magazine made no difference.

Assault Weapons: Not even relevant

Waiting Periods: He bought the gun in April.

Registration: he passed the BG check, registration isn’t stopping anything here

Smartguns: ಠ_ಠ

The only thing that would have made a difference, an armed citizen in the congregation, as it has on at least 3 other church attacks that were stopped before mass casualties were achieved.

Always gun control. How about criminal control and liberal control? All totalitarians want people’s guns.

“Obama’s political conundrum” is the fact that he wants complete eradicating gun control while at the same time he has denigrated LEOs to point of the eradication of law enforcement due to officer’s real fears of reciprocity and of being scapegoated for a community’s lack of self-governing people (e.g., NYC, Baltimore and Chicago).

    kermitrulez in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 21, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    It’s not a conundrum, it’s a plan in action. This is all about centralization of power. Taking the guns out of the hands of the populace and destroying faith in local governments are necessary steps. Then send in a beneficent DoJ to save the day and swing the masses further towards federal rule. Also notice the outcry against the “militarization” of the police. Well, once the local forces are neutered to ineffectiveness and the state’s turn to the guard, how happy are people going to be with those military forces in the streets?

    Obama laid out his plan for a federal policing force beholden to the executive branch and he’s well along the path to that. Meanwhile, our elected Republicans in Congress keep handing over more and more of our liberties to the federal government. It’s so frustrating to watch.

Barack Hussein al-Chicagi says

“The apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism remains a blight that we have to combat together.”

Tell that to the many, many more victims of Black on White, Black on Asian or Black on Brown assaults. Black racism is the most prevalent, most dangerous form of racism in this country yet neither the wannabe Caliph, Professional Race Baiters, Professional Politicians nor the Entertainment-News Industrial Complex will admit it.

Obama and other commies don’t like people have firearms, because it thwarts their long time goal of total control of the people in the United States. Without the control of firearms, there is no way that serious American people would let that happen.

When asked after WW2, why the Japanese had not tried to invade the United States, they said that too many Americans had firearms and they were ready to use them. That scared the bejesus out of them. That is also the reason why the Japanese did not totally pacify the Philippines after they took them over.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/19/colorado-springs-vs-charleston-the-church-massacre-that-ended-differently-n2014783

A tale of two very different church shootings.

It’s our job to tell the story, as the Collective will never miss an opportunity to stand atop the corpses of victims of gun free zones and call for disarming Americans.

They live for these moments, and don’t you ever believe they don’t.

This mania to just control guns when there are so many other ways a person bent on killing can accomplish the act, only exposes an ulterior motive for control.
As an example in Austria, yesterday a man not only drove his SUV into people in Graz but then apparently out and went on a stabbing spree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132535/Man-runs-car-crowd-killing-2-injuring-Austria.html

” A four-year-old boy is reported to be one of three people killed after an SUV ploughed into a crowd of people in Graz, Austria.

Another 34 people were injured in the attack, with six – including two children – said to be in a serious condition.

Eyewitnesses say the driver rammed into crowds at up to 90mph before he got out and began randomly stabbing bystanders, which included the elderly and policemen. “

Subotai Bahadur | June 21, 2015 at 5:19 pm

Obama is not alone. Today on FOX News Sunday Republican party strategist and hit man Karl Rove called for repealing the Second Amendment in order to “stop the violence”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/karl-rove-only-way-to-stop-the-violence-is-to-repeal-2nd-amendment/

Given that JEB! resigned from the board of the Michael Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Foundation [whose goal is just that] before starting his campaign; expect the Republican party to roll over and join the Democrats on that.

    I don’t think the exact words Rove used called for the repeal of the Second Amendment per se. They are, however, ample justification for that repeal, a kind of “I double-dare you” that’ll be quoted for the next oh, fifty-odd years.

    Rove did a very bad thing, politically speaking, but I don’t think he, personally, called for repeal, per se. On the other hand he has such a long history of slipperiness that I have to doubt he’s upset at the logical implication of his words, which is that somebody else really, really ought to repeal the 2nd amendment, just not him.

      DaveGinOly in reply to JBourque. | June 22, 2015 at 2:09 pm

      J, you’re correct. Rove did not call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, he suggested its repeal would be necessary in order to completely eliminate gun violence.

      However, on this point, he is wrong in several respects, two of which I’ll remark on. First, the right to arms does not exist because of the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment exists because of the right to arms. Anyone who thinks the right to arms can be eliminated by the repeal of the 2nd Amendment plainly doesn’t understand how our system is supposed to work. I suggest such people read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, for starters. Second, Prohibition and the War on Drugs show us just how effective government can be at preventing citizens from acquiring banned substances. That is to say, completely ineffective. Anyone who thinks a ban on firearms would have any different result is living in la-la land where criminals obey the law. If such a place existed, there would, in fact, be no criminals at all, because by definition they do not obey the law.

The question of concealed carry amongst the flock is a limited and circumscribed one, small enough to examine in terms of costs vs. benefits; no hysteria is needed.

The benefits are those we’ve already seen in similar circumstances. Ne’er-do-well shot and neutralized, and no harm to the faithful or to passers-by.

Ditto for the costs. Where this has been tried, there have been no regrettable incidents; not even any shootouts on Bingo night.

Financial costs to the churches are zip; no guards need be hired, metal detectors installed, etc.

Accidents are possible; yes, somebody might drop his concealed firearm while fumbling for change when the collection basket comes around, and the firearm might go off, and somebody might be hit. But that doesn’t seem to have actually happened so far.

So, the benefits are real, and the costs are something between zero and imaginary.

Now, actually fighting aggressively against evil is not the habit in all churches. But this is hardly a question for government policy.

I’ve read some Democrats going… “Oh my god, there are crazy people who are actually arguing more people should be able to carry guns in CHURCHES!” One black consultant for the party told CNN there might not have even been the three survivors had anyone else been armed. People are shocked and outraged anyone could suggest such a scheme.

I understand that there are actual real-world cases of people with concealed carry shooting and halting and/ or killing someone on an attempted gun rampage in a church. Those cases are not well known because the killer died before he could rack up a large body count and the media does not desire to publicize such irresponsible activity by victims. I like facts and logic, and recorded precedent seems to support this “crazy” and “shocking” argument.

Do dogs chase cars?
Why wouldn’t this dog of a president chase gun control?

Six-plus years and it is still hard to believe this lunatic is in the White House – and that Caitlyn Boehner is Squeaker of the House.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | June 22, 2015 at 11:37 am

Obama is chasing his own tail.

See why so many believe this is a Democrat action (Obama built that). Snark Snark!

Henry Hawkins | June 22, 2015 at 11:49 am

Personally, I ignore No Guns signs unless there is a metal detector backing it up, like at most court houses, airports, etc. It’s concealed and no one knows about it unless I have to use it, and if, God forbid, I have to use it, having broken the No Guns rule will be the least of my concerns.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste, and what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Rahm Emanuel

fucking liar

https://youtu.be/DrxUBMlCyiE

https://youtu.be/Zresz1gx3mI

like a steaming pile of dog shit on the rug, he just lies

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend