Obama Wants To Ban Guns

So says the NRA in their new commercial:

Politics bore me, but there you go.  Comment if you wish.

Hat tip: Levi, Scott


55 responses to “Obama Wants To Ban Guns”




  2. Unless he exec orders it, it won’t fly. Remember what happened to the guys who introduced the ban back in the day?

  3. Hmm, at least Obama has never gotten around to doing it unlike Romney on the other hand. I’m fine with empty threats.

  4. Only piece of gun legislation signed by Obama in his role as an executive of the government: allowed handguns in national parks and on Amtrak trains.

    Good thing Romney never signed any anti-gun bills…oh, wait.

    This. This right here is why I’ll never support the NRA. They’ve become nothing but a GOP fundraising organization.

  5. I really don’t understand how the gun community has become so entwined with the republican party. Look at what Reagan and Bush Sr. did! And I’m not saying the dems are any better. I was a republican up until about 6 years ago. I’ll be “throwing my vote away” (voting for Gary Johnson) this year.

    1. This was my thinking as of late.

    2. elephantrider Avatar

      Well I live in the Democrat controlled paradise of California and we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the 50 states. All of the other Democrat controllled cities and states seem to be the same situation (Hawaii, New York, Chicago, etc.). On the whole, I would trust Repulicans to uphold the 2nd amendment long before trusting any Democrat. George Bush wasn’t really a Republican (not sure what he really was politically) or Conservative even though he presented himself as such. RINO (Repulican In Name Only) candidates will throw the left the occasional gun control bone. The fact remains that gun control is largley un-popular in this country and Democrats loose congressional seats every time they press the issue. They know this and that is the only thing that keeps them from pressing harder on the issue.

      What we need are more people in this country who own firearms, value their 2nd Amendement rights, and are willing to vote to preserve it. The good news is that thanks to Obama (gun salesman of the decade) there is now a growing segement of these people in this country.

  6. Politics bore you? We are the ones who choose the leaders (in theory) that write the laws. Laws like the NFA34 or the GCA68. Remember what Ovomit told Medvedev about missile defense and such? Y’all, it does matter. And dudley, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Ovomit. One or the other will win, not the third. Perot took somewhere near 20 million votes during the Bush 41/Clinton match. There were less than 7 million votes separating 41 and Klintoon. That was the reason for the 94 Rep takeover of CONgress. And that was how we got the balanced budget. Politics matter. I know you don’t particularly want them here, but this one is too important to just let lie.

    1. I’m pretty sure a vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. If he wasn’t running I wouldn’t be voting.

    2. Johnson is not a third party candidate. Considering how similar the two “parties” are these days, you might as well consider the Johnson as the main opponent.

      Your vote for Romney/Obama is the one that is wasted

    3. tv_racin_fan Avatar

      If voting for Johnson is/was a vote for Ovomit and a vote for Romney is a vote FOR an gun ban who exactly do you think I should have voted for?

      Now you can claim that a vote for Romney wasn’t a vote for a gun ban but his past history don’t agree with you.

  7. Treyvon Martin Avatar
    Treyvon Martin

    You guys obviously didn’t watch the last debate where Obama said it was a goal in his second term to take “assault weapons” away

    1. Many people didn’t catch the part right after saying he’d like to bring back the assault weapons ban. He admitted that AK-47s really weren’t a problem in Chicago, it was those “cheap handguns” causing all that violence. If he will ban a type of firearm that he really doesn’t see as a problem, what are his plans for the handguns that he thinks are responsible?

      1. Oe noes, duck and cover Hi-Point!

        But seriously, didn’t they already try to ban, “Saturday Night Specials,” back in the 80’s or something? It was determined to be unconstitutional because it basically became a division of class issue; lower income people should be able to purchase arms to defend themselves too.

        1. you guys are focusing on the wrong part of ‘cheap handguns’
          All guns will be subject to a 34% federal tax, then there wont be cheap handguns, which means less handguns, which means less shootings. Try and keep up.

  8. Unfortunately gun rights just isn’t a big enough issue to the majority of the country right now for us to get a truly pro-2nd Amendment presidential candidate from either or the to oligarchy parties. The NRA does like to use scare tactics, but they do at least have enough political sway now to help prevent another “assault weapon” ban. Given the state of the economy, the deficit, and the mess in Syria (we have troops waiting on the boarder), I doubt we’ll see any real change in federal legislation on firearms regardless of who wins. Maybe some action against the ATF for Fast and Furious if the Republicans win. Maybe.

    I don’t doubt that Obama would prefer to try to get something stupid passed, but I seriously doubt that he or anyone else could swing it at the present time.

    1. Watchman Avatar

      Obama has no one to answer to in his last term, he will do whatever he chooses. Romney will not be pushing for a ban on any guns, Obama will. That is the difference. The winner of this election will go on to choose 2-3 new supreme court justices as well…. The way Obama chose his last 2 is a scary thought for his next picks. That 5-4 ruling that told us that we the people have a right to own firearms could go 3-6 saying we don’t have the right if Obama is elected.

      1. You do know that any “assault weapon” ban would have to pass Congress right?
        There’s not a lot of danger of the Democrats taking to House and being able to force this through like the ACA. If you notice I also said Obama isn’t pro-guns. Yes he does represent a threat indirectly should certain SCotUS Justices should leave the bench and he be allowed to replace them. What I did say is that Romney isn’t pro-2nd Amendment either. The best we can really expect is that things won’t get worse under him, but what we really need is the repeal of some of the asinine legislation we already have. Neither candidate offers that.

        tl;dr Sure, Romney won’t try to make things worse and he is preferable if a Supreme Court appointment needs to be made. But don’t kid yourself into thinking he’s on our side. Neither one is likely to umpire firearms rights.

        1. Agreed. A Executive Branch ban won’t get past the Republican-controlled Legislative Branch. All this fear-mongering will accomplish is HUGE revenues for firearm companies.

  9. Watchman Avatar

    Here is the link to the debate during the only 2nd Amendment Question:

    One of them calls for an Assault Weapons Ban, the other doesn’t.

    Romney did sign the semi-auto ban as Governor, but he was not the guy pushing it, he was against it. However, the bill was passed by the house and assembly… the majority of people wanted a semi-auto ban so he signed it. The will of the people was heard. This wasn’t a bill like Obamacare that was pushed through without the will of the people.

    Just when I think this blog or its readers can’t get any dumber they go ahead and prove me wrong. I can totally see why this blog has a blind hatred for Uncle Ted now. This blog is against conservatives, the Constitution, and limited gov’t.

    1. Please tell me you are trolling.

      When the boot of tyranny and oppression is on your throat, it matters not if it is a left boot or a right boot.

      I only have NRA membership for the lawyer and insurance.

      Oh, and “Uncle Ted” makes us all look bad. “Sons of Guns” makes us guys in the industry look bad. Unless we move forward with the times and start educating people on our lawful and responsible gun culture instead of alienating them, it doesn’t matter who is in office. Bans, Restrictions and the like will continue.

      We always bitch about how people need to be held accountable for their own actions and image. I think it’s time we look in the mirror and stop trying to flex our paranoia muscles. The day they come for my AK or my AR is the day I hide them. Until then, I’m gonna keep my wits about me and try and reach out and educate those who only know about guns from TV .

      1. Thank you for that. Watchman must be part of the firearms and ammo industry who along with the fearmongering of the NRA want more hype-derived sales like we’re having now for no reason. As an NRA certified instructor, I’m ashamed to be associated with them. When I lived in CA it was clear they had little to nothing to do with positive gun legislation or any good fights..that was all Calguns and other private and REAL 2A defenders. NRA = fail. Even here on a gun blog 99% of these comments illustrate this..that’s a huge change over the last 4 years.

        1. I will second your motion. For I too was a NRA instructor, until they said I couldn’t call a weapon a weapon,but had to call it a firearm. I left, joined GeorgiaPacking.Org 10 years later, which the NRA had been bad mouthing and interfering with for years. Sadly, most folks in the Georgia Assembly know to listen to those who actually vote for them,and not DC lobbyist who don’t.

          Also,I am sure you know, the NRA got the worst gun law ever passe…NFA of 34 and GCA of 68

    2. I’m pretty sure that in this video (internet is messed up so I can’t watch to confirm), he publicly tells the anchor on national TV that he supported that AWB in Massachusetts.


      Nice try, Romney campaign staffer.

    3. I commend Romney for voting the will of the people, but where do you draw the line between that and the Constitution? If the people wanted to ban free speech do you support that? If a law will violate the Constitution, despite the will of the people, isn’t the duty of any politician or elected official to oppose it?

    4. Well said Watchman. This is a GJ heaven therefor lost in a reality of head in sand political views. Tin foil wrapped head to toe. Oh well, I still like the humor here. Comments on this not withstanding.

    5. tv_racin_fan Avatar

      You should go do some investigation as it was Mitt Romeny who pushed for that particular bill in Massachusetts.

      He may say anything lately but he believes that the citizen has no reason to keep and bear those evil firearms.

  10. In the second debate, one guy said “assault weapons” weren’t the weapons of choice of criminals, then proceeded to say he supported an assault weapons ban. The other guy avoided the question and turned it into a criticism of single parents. This was the theme of the night — avoiding the real questions, blatantly lying, and “Freedom! Middle class! Jobs!” Heh. Fuck ’em both.

    1. It will be one or the other. That simple. I’m getting sick to death of “lesser of two evil” voting. But that’s what we’ve got.

  11. Since Obama has been in office, my gun rights have gotten better, not worse. It’s about to get a lot easier to concealed carry where I live.

    1. Watchman Avatar

      Obama had a lot to do with it I’m sure! (These people are brain dead around here)

      1. He means that all YOUR hype and fearmongering back in 2008 were absolutely bogus and dishonest and that not only did Obama not take away all our guns, gun rights actually improved a little under Obama. And like someone said above, we can carry handguns in national parks and on Amtrak now directly because of Obama. I’m no apologist for the guy and don’t want him anymore than you do, but try and be honest about your crap dude. Also, how many AR15 stripped lowers did you buy 4 years ago? I bet you contributed to half the country running out to buy them though didn’t you?

      2. Obama has had nothing to do with my gun rights improving. I have little reason to believe he will affect my gun rights at all.

        1. Actually you can use a handgun in a national park because Obama signed that into law. You can also ride Amtrak with your gun directly because of Obama. Give it where it’s due.

          1. Travesty Avatar

            The reason you can carry a handgun in a national park is because a republican from Oklahoma attached it as an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009

          2. Watchman Avatar

            This is the same Obama that said you can’t own a handgun within Chicago. Yes I am sure he was excited to sign the bills you mentioned.

    2. If you’re talking about local or state regulations becoming more lenient I don’t think that’s due to Obama. The grassroots movement to loosen firearm regulations has been going on for a while.

      1. I did not mean to imply that he had anything to do with my improving gun rights. It’s all been local/state movements here. Given past data I can’t assume that an Obama re-election will change that course dramatically.

        1. True. I’m actually glad people are starting to, for lack of a better term, “give up” on the federal level and work harder on achieving local and state goals. Not everything needs to be a federal issue and often times (like with right to carry) it’s actually the more local government that has a greater impact.

    3. And the laws where I live have gotten worse. your point? Obama had nothing to do with either of our locations.

      1. “Obama had nothing to do with either of our locations.”

        That’s my point.

        1. Understood. Doesn’t mean he can’t.

          I only vote on two issues anyway: taxes and who they will probably appoint to SCOTUS.

          1. “Understood. Doesn’t mean he can’t.”

            I just hope to God he doesn’t become the caricature depicted in the NRA ads if he gets re-elected. ;-)

          2. Those are two extremely important factors indeed! Most particularly the SCOTUS bit.

  12. I think a AWB will lead to even more guns being banned. As soon as “assault rifles” are gone and crimes start being committed with shotguns and bolt action rifles we’ll have a new “assault rifle” that will once again be cried out against and try to be banned. Where does it end? The line must be drawn here, this far and no farther!

    1. The problem with that argument is that the “assault weapons” that anti’s want banned aren’t being used in very many crimes at all. Even a ban wouldn’t lead to criminals using more shotguns or bolt action rifles. The anti’s just pick on “assault weapons” because they look “scary” and they know a full out ban isn’t politically viable at the current time.

      1. That’s true. I wish more people would conceal carry because tragic events like colorado would be turned into a huge win if someone there had a pistol and shot the guy dead before anything happened.

      2. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

        All homicides
        Number of deaths: 16,799
        Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
        Cause of death rank: 15
        Firearm homicides
        Number of deaths: 11,493
        Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

        I can’t find the source, but I read recently that handguns make up 90% (low estimate) of firearms-related homicides.

  13. Tactical Hipster Avatar
    Tactical Hipster

    Cops kill more people than “assault weapons.”

  14. Banning weapons for law abiding citizens is a terrible idea. Period.

  15. Steve D. Avatar

    I’m split between the two:

    Obama is better for the health of the country and the finance of the 97%, while Romney is a better option for keeping our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Obama seems like a genuinely nice guy, though is influenced by the knee-jerking anti-gun Brady-Bunch hypocrites.
    Romney has shown that he’s a douchebag, but may be more influenced by the NRA.

    I’m just glad I live in Texas, where it’s highly unlikely they’ll ever let Federal laws take away our rights to keep and bear arms.

  16. paul kimble Avatar
    paul kimble

    Fuck them both in the face. I dont know who is more clueless Obama, Romney or morons who think there is actually a difference between the two parties. Probably the same people who call their semi-auto AKM clone an AK-47.


  17. For every conservative/libertarian voter who’s down on Romney, get a grip. I too dislike Romney immensely, but the primary season is where you get to support your ideal candidate. Sadly, too many conservative/libertarian options led to the vote splitting in favor of the RINO Romney. However, I will still vote for him because the reality is that only either Barry or Romney will win. Barry has proven his contempt for the american people and our consititution during the last four years. With Romney, we at least have a 1% chance of turning the country back from the brink of destitute and prevent civil war. With Obama we have no chance of course correction. I can understand how some of you dont like politics, but the fact is that politics affect our daily lives which makes it important to have a side. And as firearms owners, we are the last resort gaurdians of freedom, which REQUIRES us to be involved in politics. Dont kid yourselves into thinking that this is an ordinary election, this is make or break time.

  18. Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias?

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

    Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

    Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

    The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

    During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

    NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

    You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

    Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

    Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.