Our beloved commander in chief is at it again.

[MP_OHIO]

Obama officially, publicly calls for new gun control

On Sunday, March 13, 2011, the president of the United States began publicly call for new gun control limits against law-abiding citizens in hopes of curtailing the behavior of the lawless. Gun rights activists have known this day was coming since the day Barack Obama won his party's nomination (and since John McCain won his).

In an op-ed published in the Arizona Daily Star, Obama pointed to the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in his carefully worded, no-doubt poll-tested call for "reform."...

Full Story:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/printable/node/7707

[Hank Stamper]

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

[djv38]

Surprise surprise. He knows he's pissed off the democratic core as of late and is now trying to regain their trust. Didn't think it would happen this year that he would call for stricter gun control...

[Vulcan71]

What I do not understand is the simple fact that the US has the highest crime rates in the world so why disarm or limit our right to bear arms and protect ourselves. Our society is becoming more violent and our economy is bad so crime rates are on the rise so why should we limit the good people of society by gun control who want the right to the pursuit of happiness is a safer society.

The new movement or return to self reliance is base on our ability to fend for ourselves but that cannot happen until we have some of our freedom back. I wish we could find our founding fathers and put them in office. This is one reason Wisconsin decided to allow CCW after years of stiff support against it. The major players of law enforcement were dead against it back in 2008/2009 but in 2011/2012 they are on-board due to serious problems with public order and local government resources.

[MikeChandler]

the simple fact that the US has the highest crime rates in the world so

I question that simple fact. I've seen some pretty brutal crime happen in south america, sometimes by the very men supposedly protecting the people, most of which goes unreported.

But I don't dispute disarming law-abiding citizens is wrong. It makes no sense at all. I just wanted to point out that I hear stuff about the US crime rate a lot, and I think it's misinformed - America is not as ugly as some would have you believe, and we actually report most of the crime that happens, not sweep it under the rug like much of the world, including the EU.

[Thermallator]

Here is my take on the issue.

If all he's going to do is force mandatory background checks for private sales - I'm all for it - and it's long overdue. Here's why. I don't want the illegal Mexican gang-bangers getting their weapons at the SLC gun-show(s) or via KSL on-line classified ads. The world is not a s simple as stating that anyone should be allowed to own a weapon - no questions asked, no background check, no nothing. The mantra that criminals will get their weapons anyways does not hold true. Yes there are many bad guns/criminals in circulation but society does not have to make it any easier for them than looking up an ad on KSL and going to pick the gun up with cash.

Yes, all gun sales will then be recorded. THEY will know you have it. How many have you bought in your collection that did not have to go through FFL in the past 10 years? Me - none.

So let's just wait what Obummer is going to come to the table with. I'd rather he focus on this issue than attempt to re-instate the AWB.

-TH

[WargameHub]

Per capita the violent crime rate in Canada is higher than the US. Same with many other countries. But the antis just like to look at total numbers and because we have so many people it skews it. The rates of deaths per motorcycle and deaths per illegal drunk driver are both much higher than deaths per gun in the US.

Sent from my SPH-P100 using Tapatalk

[Econometrics]

Here is my take on the issue.

If all he's going to do is force mandatory background checks for private sales - I'm all for it - and it's long overdue.

-TH

+1 Therm, and for the reasons you stated in your post. A mandatory check is really not that big of a deal. It stinks, sure, but the pros outweigh the cons.

[emptybrass]

I wont sell someone a gun without going through a FFL and doing a background check. I do not want the liability and knowing of selling to a criminal. I agree with THerm.

[FullAssault]

-1 for every inch you give up in the gun control fight is an inch you will never get back. Everytime you give up a freedom it's NOT going to make you safer, it's not going to stop people from doing bad things and it's not going to make your world any better. I'm sure there's lots of people who would like to take your rights to own your FN collection because it don't effect their hunting collection. I for one want ALL of my freedom and rights our constitution gives me.