« | »

Obama (Doesn’t) Allay Fears Of Handgun Ban

From The Hill:

Obama seeks to allay fears: ‘I actually don’t think we should ban handguns’

By Jonathan Easley | February 14, 2013

President Obama on Thursday sought to allay the fears of gun advocates by saying he’s not looking to ban handguns and would pursue controls that were “respectful of regional differences.”

Didn’t Obama say exactly the same thing about being respectful of religious viewpoints, right before he issued his birth control mandates on religious institutions?

During a Google Plus “Fireside Hangout,” Obama was asked why he favored a ban on assault weapons, which account for only a small percentage of gun deaths, as opposed to handguns, which are responsible for the majority.

“I actually don’t think we should ban handguns,” Obama said. “But keep in mind what we’re trying to do is come up with a package that protects Second Amendment rights but also contributes to reduce violence.”

If the goal is to reduce violence, why doesn’t he want to ban handguns as well, since they are the major cause of gun violence?

Obama said assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are “generally not used for hunting” —

Neither are handguns.

and that while banning them won’t “solve every problem,” it “can play a meaningful part” in reducing gun violence.

Huh? If assault weapons are only a tiny part of the problem, why not go after the real problem which (to his mind) is handguns?

The truth is he will go after the real problem, once he has his foot in the door. Then he will use the argument that handguns are the cause of the vast majority of ‘gun violence,’ so of course they have to be banned.

“When it comes to assault weapons…my concern is, for example, in Aurora, when a young person can go into a theater and shoot off a hundred rounds in less than a minute,” Obama said. “These are weapons of war…so for us to restrict some of those high-capacity magazines…that probably can save some lives.”

Handguns also have high capacity magazines.

The president acknowledged that there are “a lot of passions in these issues,” as well as divergences in opinion that exist between urban and rural areas.

“We’ve got to be respectful of regional differences,” he said…

Again, he said the same thing about being respectful of religious differences, right before he issued his birth control mandate.

Dozens of victims of gun violence attended the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday in the House chamber, where Obama asked Congress to stage votes on proposals to expand background checks on gun purchases, ban assault weapons and prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines…

“What we’re saying is there may be a small category of weapons that we think can drastically increase instances of gun violence.” …

Again, an assault weapons ban will not drastically reduce the instances of gun violence. They are almost never used in gun violence. But logic has never matter to Obama or any liberal Democrat.

So how did Obama allay anyone’s fears that he isn’t going to eventually try to ban handguns? In fact, he just laid out the argument for banning handguns: ‘If you want to end gun violence, you have to go after handguns.’

But don’t worry, once he gets an assault rifle ban, he will demand a handgun ban, too.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, February 15th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Obama (Doesn’t) Allay Fears Of Handgun Ban”

  1. bousquem25 says:

    Handguns can be used for hunting but that wouldn’t stop the communist in chief from demanding everyone turn over all guns, nevermind that criminals will never do this. I wonder how long before 10 rounds mags get called high-capacity and now they only want 5 round mags then 3 round mags. I can also see a “lets ban any thing semi-automatic” because semiautomatic means means machine gun to moonbats.

  2. canary says:

    Weary and worn Secret Service Director retires after Inauguration parties, WH release of
    President shooting gun photo and Vogue’s all day photo-shoot at White House.

    Dailymail.co.uk: Secret Service Director to resign after 30 years with agency and less than a year after Colombian prostitution scandal that involved a dozen agents

    By Hayley Peterson – 1 Feb 2013

    Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan is retiring this month after 30 years with the agency.
    Sullivan is stepping down less than a year after the agency became embroiled in a prostitution scandal, which involved 13 agents and officers in Cartegena, Colombia ahead of a visit by President Obama.

    President Obama said Sullivan ‘will be missed.’

    ‘I want to thank Mark Sullivan for nearly 30 years of service to our nation at the United States Secret Service, a tenure that saw the agency protect five first families including my own,’ he said in a statement. ‘The Secret Service is best known for protecting our nation’s leaders, but every day they also protect the American people.

    ‘From securing large events such as presidential inaugurations to safeguarding our financial system, the men and women of the agency perform their mission with professionalism and dedication,’ the statement continued.

    Suicide bomber attack on U.S Embassy in Turkey: Obama administration says explosion at security gates is an ‘act of terror’ as Westerners warned to ‘be vigilant’

    The new policies state that alcohol consumption is only allowed in moderate amounts while off-duty and that consumption is prohibited within 10 hours of reporting for duty.

    The rules also prohibit foreign nationals from entering an agent’s hotel room.


  3. Astravogel says:

    Let’s return a moment to that photograph of TCP shooting a weapon.
    I am curious about the visible smoke from the muzzle. I’ve never seen
    this from a smokeless powder weapon. I am also curious about the
    small ‘plume’ apparently issuing from the right side just behind what
    appears to be a front sight. And that ‘front sight’ is an anonomaly as
    well, if that is a shotgun for skeet. Additionally, is that a full length
    magazine under the barrel? Somewhat rare on shotguns. Perhaps
    some more knowlegeable readers can determine the type and brand
    this thing is (the gun, not TCP).

  4. DW says:

    He’s shooting an over-and-under shotgun -quite common for skeet and bird hunting. That’s a second barrel, not a magazine.
    The front sight appears to be one of those high-visibility beads that are popular today -they’re fairly long for some reason.
    As to the puff of smoke behind the sight -all I can think of is maybe the gun has a compensator (basically a hole that directs gas upwards and thus reduces muzzle rise). I’m not sure how that would work for the lower barrel…
    I don’t think the smoke itself is all that unusual.

    As to the make of the gun…no idea. Probably something dreadfully expensive -most o/u’s are. Ruger makes one called the Red-Label which is priced reasonably enough for most of us bitter clingers.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The whole thing goes back to his Alinsky training; His embracing of communism and his belief that “he’s the one we’ve been waiting for”.

    Back in 2009, he told Mrs Brady that “we’re working on gun control, but under the radar” which, most likely, was Fast & Furious, the doomed-to-failure hypocritical plan to get Americans killed with “illegal” guns that returned to the US via Mexico, via a sham of a purchasing program that allowed it to happen under direction of Eric (the red) Holder, under Obama’s purview.

    It failed. It failed with hair on it. Though it did get some Americans killed and a lot more Mexicans.

    While the ongoing under-the-rug sweeping was in-progress, some freak-show nutjob killed a bunch of people in Connecticut whereupon the national socialists in our government took ahold of it to use it as the surrogate crisis in place of their failed manufactured one. It appears to have done a nice job for them.

    But at the end of the day, again, we, the American people, reach an impasse against our government. We KNOW what the second amendment means. Now and for always.

    We KNOW that the founding fathers put that in there as a mechanism to keep the guns in the hands of the private citizen so that despots and tyrannical government types will think twice on how to overcome the burden of controlling people; Uh, “for their own good, you understand”.

    So, all that remains is how to go about it. Britain did it, as did all of Europe. And they’re in a hell of a pickle, all of them. Their governments are all in a wad, like your chewing gum having hair in it and bugs. But they are forcing their citizens to chew it anyhow.

    People in this nation need to wake up to the reality that the slow, snakelike approach to taking our guns is their tried and true method. In 1800 nobody would allow the government on a state or local level to keep them from their guns. But we have cities now that are “gun free zones” so that the criminals know we are unarmed and can have their way with us with no fear of retaliation or protection and they know how long it takes for a cop to get there. Those “gun-free” cities also have the highest crime-rates and gun-related crimes in the nation.

    Oh, the laws of unintended consequences. Those pesky criminals make the government look bad. What a shame.

    But, history, which they no longer teach in grade, junior and senior highs schools, teaches us that every major despotic regime in the history of the 20th century, went about their destruction of a nation by taking the guns away from the citizenry. They did not have any document like the Constitution, which is the basis for many of our laws and the framework for our system of government.

    But we are sliding into a laisse’ faire attitude and allowing the government to control us. DUI laws, seatbelt laws, etc.

    *note: I wear my seatbelt because it’s a good idea, not because the government tells me to. I don’t drink and drive because it’s foolish, not because the government tells me not to. And therein lies the difference; Personal responsibility vs. enforced societal engineering.

    And I won’t give up my guns because some assh*le thinks that the law will control me. It would be a stupid law and when they knock on my door to come take them, many of them will die. This is precisely what they are trying to avoid. Using this idiot Dorner as a case in point, the sheriff’s department knew he was heavily armed and thus, did not go right up to the doors of the cabins they were examining for fear of getting their heads blown off.

    I want them equally afraid when they come to my house. I refuse to allow them to come in and illegally search and seize my weapons because I am a FREE AMERICAN.

    Molon labe, Mr Obama. Please.

    Their first “trick” will be to enter the house when I’m not home and take them. Then charge me in absentia. That’s how despots operate and how they gain the upper hand. But they will have to find them, first.

    I have lost all respect for how our government operates anyway. They no longer serve the people. They believe the people are there to service and serve them. Every time I see a cop now, I want to vomit because hand-in-hand with their public education, they operate in a manner I can only describe as “King Assh*le”. I have watched as the local uniforms berate, scold and ridicule a suspect, rather than just doing their job. We have now, many petulant Obama-types in law enforcement who DEMAND respect.

    A few weeks ago, I was trying to eat my lunch at a local restaurant while sitting next to four deputies. They were rude, obnoxious and loud. I finally turned to the one closest to me and said, “You’re not only an obnoxious assh*le, you’re stupid, too. Why don’t you just shut up?”.

    The looks of astonishment were Kodak-worthy.

    “Look, I’m trying to eat my lunch. You see I have these ear-buds in and I have the volume all the way up….yet I still can’t hear the radio for your over-the-top booming voices. It was quiet in here before you four showed up. Why is it so hard to keep it down? What’s the problem?”

    After the threatening looks, they finished their meals and left. One of them came back in and apologized and we actually enjoyed a decent conversation. He actually indicted that he realized that as a public servant a certain amount of decorum was required and he said he thought about that, not from his police training, but from his military training and again, he was sorry for giving a poor showing.

    I told him I was impressed by his assessment and that as a civilian, expect the police to understand for whom they work and why; That I have nothing against the police on a personal level but that I’ve seen the quality of the forces go downhill over adolescent egoism. And that’s what I felt I was witnessing.

    It was a good exchange and left me hoping that they’re all more like the one who had a clue than the other three.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »