January 25, 2009

Obama Administration Summary Statement on Guns

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This is now posted on the whitehouse.gov website under The Agenda>Urban Policy>Crime and Law Enforcement:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun-trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Click here to see the posting.

GunReports.com wonders why gun-related issues aren't filed under the Civil Rights header in The Agenda?

Oh, we forgot--Obama and Biden don't really think gun ownership is a right--as we'll soon find out.

Comments (29)

Jeff,
Sorry I have been slow responding, lost a very good friend (and his wife) to an auto accident, things have been a little hectic since.
My friend was a council member of the John Birch Society, a true gentleman and a patriot's patriot.
You can access the website at JBS.org.
The JBS is also not perfect, but they are the best source of Constitutional material I have found. And they are endorsed by Representative Ron Paul, even though they do not endorse him (they have never endorsed political candidates).
It is good to know there are others concerned about their family members and realize they will suffer the consequences if we do not step up to the challenges.

Doug

Posted by: DES | February 12, 2009 3:21 PM    Report this comment

Research John Birch Society

Posted by: JWallace | February 8, 2009 9:12 AM    Report this comment

Doug, I have thought of joining the JBS many times before. Can you post the link? How much is membership? What is their mission statement?

I have had family in America since the first Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. I'm actually related to three of the Pilgrim familes and I have had family members involved in or at least have observed every moment of U.S. history since then.

It is now my time to stand watch over the tree of liberty and I want to do everything I can to protect it for future generations. I thought of joining the JBS many times, but I sometimes get distracted by running my multiple businesses.

On some of your points though, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | February 7, 2009 10:54 AM    Report this comment

After reviewing only some of my saved material it became obvious you will never understand it. You obviously do not understand the u.S Constitution and to think any part of working with the UN is acceptable is accepting treason.
The UN is doing everything it can to destroy the Constitution. The UN can not be "reformed", it's basis is evil.
One part of what I saved are records of NRA for years endorsing political candidates. Many of them recieved "A" ratings even though they voted for legislation that indirectly harmed not only gun owners but directly Americans in general. Any politician that voted for money to support the UN the BATFE or any of the alphabet soup agencies is voting against freedom.
When I hear about any group endorsing a Republican or a Democrat I know this is a mistake. Just as voting for the "lesser of evils" is voting for evil, these two "parties" are just different branches of the same criminal cartel.
Further to try to convince me that the NRA is the reason "we can have this exchange" is ludicrous.
If any organization could claim that it would be the JBS (John Birch Society) which even though it only has a few tens of thousands of members, stopped a Constitutional convention.
The JBS has done more, with less, in a shorter period of time, than the NRA with it's millions of members. If they (and a few other small groups) could not have stopped the Constitutional convention, the NRA and our gun rights and most others would be history.
About the board of directors at the NRA, I will not be hoodwinked into thinking the "elections" were not set up to favor certain candidates.
Sorry if it hurts your feelings but I have lost faith and confidence in the NRA and the slick suited, slimy tongued denizons of the posh offices in the District of Criminals.
When someone says to me "Join the NRA" I will ask them to show me the gains vs the losses. With 5 million members this should have been a slam dunk...unless the leadership does not want the win.

Doug


Posted by: DES | February 6, 2009 11:14 AM    Report this comment

Doug, one more thing. The NRA Board of Directors is voted on by every member with at least a five year membership. Can you explain in detail, perhaps in a separate post how the NRA was 'purging' hard liners from the BOD? I'd be interested in how that was accomplished without a full vote from the entire organization. I really am open to listening to criticism, really I am. I just don't hear or see anything I can double-check, verify and substantiate.

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | February 3, 2009 1:38 PM    Report this comment

Doug,

Could you very briefly cite and footnote your sources for me? You say you have evidence, but have cited no verifiable sources.

NOT becoming a U.N. NGO when there are concerted efforts at worldwide small arms control, would be irresponsible in my estimation. Please cite the source for the NRA's lobbying to open a constitutional convention, I'd be interested to read it.

I'm VERY connected with the NRA and I spoke in-person with Andrew Arulanandam (NRA Public Relations) he said to me that the NRA lobbied hard against McCain-Feingold, please cite your source there as well, if you would. Oh yeah, I have a copy of the Constitution right here in my office and it doesn't mention the BATFE. Could you give evidence of that one as well?

Thanks,
Marc
www.SaveTheGuns.com

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | February 3, 2009 1:32 PM    Report this comment

Tirade (taire'id) n. a long, rhetorical harangue, or written passage full of vehement criticism or invective. [F.fr. Ital.]
Invective (inve'ktiv) n. violently abusive language // a violent verbal attack verbal attack
[F. invectif]

I challenge you to show me where there was any violent abusive language in my letter.
Further you are using the age old tactic of attacking the messenger because you cannot refute the message. You say there is “so much completely incorrect in your tirade” but you give not one example. Plus you assume I have made “presuppositions”.
And then you go on to support your claim by saying “... without the NRA, we wouldn't even be having this exchange”.
The facts simply do not support anything you wrote because you absolutely can't.
I can and would with lengthy examples which span over thirty years, but your rosy NRA glasses would not focus on the facts.
Briefly, the NRA has done many things that are undermining Second Amendment yet the true believers will always find excuses.
Becoming a UN NGO is one, joining calls for a Constitutional Convention is another, purging the NRA ranks of true hardliners one more, support for McCain/Feingold another and I can go on but I won't.
The BATFE is an un-Constitutional (criminally controlled) agency, that is a indisputable fact, but you have never heard that from the NRA.
I have tracked (as a member) the things I found distasteful and written them down. I have the evidence and if you find that to be a tirade then you sir/madam are grossly misinformed.


Doug Schurman

Posted by: DES | February 3, 2009 1:19 PM    Report this comment

Gun Control works well; FOR THE CRIMINALS!!
Nuff said.

Posted by: Sharps | February 3, 2009 9:41 AM    Report this comment

The present administration is no differnent than Clintons. They agree with some other past leaders. GUN CONTROL WORKS. JUST LOKK IN HISTORY SUCH AS HITLER

Posted by: Wayne D | February 1, 2009 1:02 PM    Report this comment

Doug,

You have oh so much completely incorrect in your tirade. Without the NRA, we would not be posting on a Web site called 'GunReports'. Joaquin Jackson is a piece of garbage, that much I will agree with. But to throw out the entire organization because of one rotten apple is not very well thought out.

I like JPFO and I have conversed with Aaron Zelman before. But organizations like his and GOA, SAF etc. should only be considered after you've maintained NRA membership.

Obviously you have faulty presuppostions about the NRA and I'm likely not going to change your mind, but again, without the NRA, we wouldn't even be having this exchange.

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | January 31, 2009 9:55 AM    Report this comment

After years of study of the political arena I have come to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are uneducated, lazy cowards. A few think if they pack an NRA card and slap on a bumper sticker or two, they have done their part.
The NRA (of which I have been a member) is nothing more than a money grubbing bureaucracy which falls miles short of reaching the actual battlefields. They are so in tune with the politically correct crowd they are beginning to smell like them. The NRA has done little to stem the flow of anti-gun legislation and in some cases aid the enemy.
One of the NRA Board of Directors, Joaquin Jackson, has even stated “I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you... if you... It's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five rounds.”
In my opinion the leadership of the NRA has joined the enemy but has not bothered to tell the dues paying members.
The NRA had the opportunity to get rid of the criminal BATFE years ago and declined. The pathetic excuse was basically “If they were gone, the government would either create another agency or assign the task to some other agency”.
The truth is, if the was no threat, the NRA could not milk the shooting community out of millions of dollars annually.
The NRA treats this like a social event when it is all out war against us and our freedoms.
There are other pro-gun, pro-freedom organizations that are getting my support.
My favorite is the JPFO, Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership.
JPFO's Aaron Zelman and his crew are the Flying Tigers in this war and I pray for their success.
If 5% of the gun owners in America were members of JPFO we would win this war very quickly.


Doug Schurman

Posted by: DES | January 30, 2009 4:14 PM    Report this comment

The assault weapons ban is a old tired horse that needs to be put to rest. Law abiding gun owners have always followed the state and federal guns laws while criminals don't.
The current gun laws on the books properly
enforced will work if our federal,state,and county officials work together to put convicted
gun felons in prison and not on probation when they use guns against lawful citizens. Our nation will then be a much safer place for all of us to live.Lets take gun control out of politics and get to work enforcing our current gun laws already on the books.Its time to leave lawful gun owners alone and move on to more pressing issues like our nations economy.

FMDCF (From My Dead Cold Fingers)

Posted by: dotson54 | January 30, 2009 7:20 AM    Report this comment

Since this site is closely monitored by the Feds and more importantly the ATF division, I will not say what I am thinking. I will say that if they can't keep the illegals from entering the US, they can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All the bans, laws, regulations, treaties, and associations will NOT keep guns away from the U.S. Citizens that want them. "They will have to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" The Duke Hide em in plain sight and don't advertise the fact that you have them at all. It's no body else's business anyway. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | January 29, 2009 11:20 PM    Report this comment

Why is this such a surprise? We were all forewarned of this agenda long before Barry Hussein took his oath meanwhile obiously not enough of us took action. Well it's too late to "vote differently" s now we must focus on the fight if and when it comes. Let us be proactive and not reactive. Getting blindsided will certainly doom our efforts to keep these changes from occurring and put us years back in continuing the progress made with concealed carry, Castle Doctrine, Heller, etc. Lets start by turning our talk into action.Join the NRA, CCRKBA, SAF, you local gun club and state affiliate club. When one of them needs help. man the phones, write the letters, protest, whatever. Yeah, it takes a few extra bucks and some time. Think of all the time we'll have when we have nothing to shoot or hunt with. Lets also be careful not to use the words they use to frighten people. Don't say sales of assault weapons are up. assault weapons are already illegal to own. That .45 you own isn't an automatic pistol, it's a semi-automatic. Even many of our guns books and magazines are guilty of this transgression. (I know ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol..we're stuck with that and some others)..

Posted by: tonyc613@optonline.net | January 29, 2009 10:06 PM    Report this comment

In all fairness to Obama, his "agenda" is not new. It’s word for word the same exact thing he had posted on his websites for months. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's certainly not shocking.

"If one studies the Bible, it describes him as perfectly as possible when it talks about the Anti-Christ." Uh not even close Ralph. What passage are you reading? Certainly not Revelation and I highly doubt you could quote anything of substance. I do think Matthew 7:15 may be more fitting. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves”.

And again, the vigilance needs to be against all politicians, all parties. The last time the Assault Weapons Ban was reintroduced into Congress was June 12, 2008. It was called “H.R. 6257 Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008” and lookie here, it was sponsored by a Republican and co-sponsored by four more Republicans. Not a Democrats name on it anywhere.

And Mark G. I hate to break the news to you but there is no U.N. resolution or anything for a “global gun ban”. There is something called the “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” and American was the only country to vote. Primarily because we supply most of those arms and its bad for business, not for any love of the 2nd Amendment. Always ask yourself Cui bono?

Posted by: August | January 29, 2009 4:50 PM    Report this comment

Well, get ready to see a spike in assault weapon sales due to Obama and Biden saying they support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. That's about all that will transpire from the comment. Reverse psychology, use fear to drive the economy rather than allowing fear to slow it down. There's no way possible this adminstration will be able to attach stipulations to the 2nd amendment. Obama isn't going to attempt to upset 90 million legal gun owners. I'm sure he's more worried about radicals who have accepted the fact that he has been elected president but have an opportunity to deny him from serving a full term. That's my concern. When you look at this scenario, your attention is most likely to be focused on the mindset of the individual (s) rather than the armament of choice. And that's where anti-gun activists should focus their attention.

Posted by: JWallace | January 29, 2009 3:54 PM    Report this comment

Obama two-faced? He promised change too. All we got was a bunch of Clinton retreads. Why any gun owner would vote for him escapes me. Anticipate big ammo taxes as well. The situation is dire and it is upon all of us to support pro gun Representatives and Senators. Back in the 90s we failed to build a Clinton-proof Congress and we paid dearly. We must not allow that same fate to happen to us and our children with this latest enemy of freedom.

Posted by: sivispace | January 29, 2009 2:48 PM    Report this comment

Anyone who says he supports the 2nd admendment, takes an Oath to support it the instantly starts trying to enforce the destruction of same will lie about other things, watch out America, the king has on no clothes.

Posted by: johnlaw | January 29, 2009 1:42 PM    Report this comment

I like what savetheguns said, 2nd comment " You can't have it both ways" political sidesteping at its best. You can't have it both ways reminds me of these ignorant Hollywood liberals who say "I am against the war, but I support our troops". You can't have it both ways. I was sitting in a V.A. hospital with my friend that had just lost a leg and thinking what a Hollywood liberal would tell him. That they were against the war, it was unjust, and that he just lost his leg for no reason, however they support him. Bulls&$%, you can't have it both ways. Gun owners need to join the NRA, you can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Robert J | January 29, 2009 12:52 PM    Report this comment

Obama and those with views such as his, can't see the forest for the trees. In addition to destroying constitutional rights, restricting and/or banning guns of any type only effects law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less if their gun is legal. "Marijuana is generally illegal in this country but can be readily purchased everywhere"

Posted by: Flash@NC | January 29, 2009 12:22 PM    Report this comment

Once again, I'll say it. The main reason that the new administration will be able to get away with it is that only 5% of America's 90 million gun owners are members of the National Rifle Association. Yes, that's only five percent.

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | January 29, 2009 11:47 AM    Report this comment

What gun show loophole? The one that requires a different set of requirements to sell from one individual to another versus an individual buying from a retailer?

Posted by: Rodeo Rex | January 29, 2009 11:05 AM    Report this comment

Yea--they support common sense--better read their gun control proposals in their history.
I predict three efforts to effect gun ownership.
1--the gunshow so called loophole will be written into law--all sales will require NICCS
Those casual sales ( tables with several hundred guns won't like it ) but it is coming.
2-- the electronic bullet serialization requirement will be done--the cost passed to consumers
3--somehow/ some way the asault weapons ban will return.
Meanwhile criminals get free lodging/ medical benefits at our tax dollars ( if they get punished)
Another effort that may be quitely introduced is all sales ( private sales etc) will be required to post through NICCS via local law enforment. Some states have this in place already ( Hawaii
being one as when I was stationed there is was required for purchases.)
All this political bull**** about respecting our gun ownership rights is just that --POLITICAL BULL***--the Uncle Obie crowd is already ignoring NRA input / advice etc.
The potential to impact on ownership helped clear the inventory of a lot of gun business--if you dont have one of the potential assault weapons--good luck in the future getting one and be ready to pay high dollars to get one !
Meanwhile all had better start talking to their elected officials.
Aubrey Nabb

Posted by: anabb | January 29, 2009 10:45 AM    Report this comment

Mark G

We do have to keep a close eye on the U.N. but the United States Senate only has the power to agree to a U.N. Resolution. The Ambassador doesn't have such leeway. Unless I am mistaken, but that was the law last I knew. But then again, 'change' has come to Washington....

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | January 29, 2009 10:35 AM    Report this comment

Classic bait and switch!

Posted by: DrNo | January 29, 2009 10:33 AM    Report this comment

It is nothing but smoke and mirrors. While Huey and Luey are talking about preserving our 2nd Amendment rights, keep your eye on our US Ambassador to the UN. She may sign the Global Gun Ban Treaty.

Posted by: Mark G | January 29, 2009 10:24 AM    Report this comment

Morons.

Posted by: KURT L. H | January 29, 2009 10:24 AM    Report this comment

Hmmm, the Obama Administration says on one side of their mouth that they "...respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners...", but then go on to say "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

You cannot have both of these. You either respect the Second Amendment or you advocate for a ban. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: SaveTheGuns.com | January 29, 2009 10:16 AM    Report this comment

A "common sense measure" that would respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners would simply be a pledge to follow the literal meaning of the amendment, and allow the authority of the governments(s) to remain as established by the constitution.

Posted by: Ken J | January 29, 2009 9:53 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In