Home | News | National | White House Confirms Obama Wants To Ban Guns

White House Confirms Obama Wants To Ban Guns

By
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

During the White House Press Conference on Monday, not only did Press Secretary Jay Carney put distance from Harry Reid’s comments concerning Mitt Romney’s failure to pay taxes for 10 years, yet not disavow the remarks, but he also affirmed the fact that Barack Obama is also out to ban guns, something we’ve known all along. He affirmed Obama’s position to re-institute the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Of course I warned about such calls for more gun control on Monday.

When asked whether Obama supported renewing the 1994-2004 federal ban of semi-automatic weapons for civilians, Carney responded,

“He does support renewing the assault weapons ban,” and he added that “there has been reluctance by Congress to pass that renewal.”

I will interject to say there is good reason that Congress doesn’t act. Banning supposed “assault weapons” does nothing to stop criminals from acquiring them. The Obama administration should know this best seeing that they delivered some 2,500 semi-automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, which were responsible for at least two U.S. federal agent deaths and the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans. As I’ve said before we need more politician control legislation rather than gun control legislation.

While Carney said that the administration intends to push for gun safety “under existing law” and “not infringe upon Second Amendment rights of citizens” the fact is that is the exact opposite of what such measures do. The issue is not “gun safety.” That is merely the marketing of the Obama administration. Gun safety is what an individual does, not what government does. The Obama administration is not interested in gun safety. They are interested in gun banning.

Understand something here. The call for the ban of semi-automatic weapons is a call for most modern guns on the market. According to Reuters, the shooter at the Sikh temple was using a simple Springfield 9mm semiautomatic handgun.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates to reduce gun violence, said,

“There is no valid reason for civilians to have assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines. We have to start ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands in the United States.”

You see, this is just an echo of the Obama administration. There are plenty of valid reasons for law-abiding citizens to posses “assault” rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines. If we are to believe Mr. Sugarmann, then if those semi-automatic guns are out of the hands of the population, then there is absolutely no need for any government official to have a body guard armed with a semi-automatic handgun. Furthermore, there is no need for police to be armed with them either.

If there is a cry from these people who want more gun control and gun bans, then they need to follow their “illogic” to its logical conclusion and that would mean there would be no need for any semi-automatic guns at all. That is not the case though and they know it. Their is no Utopia like liberals assume in our future simply because men are fallen and because they are fallen they need means of protection against those men who lack self-control.

I never know how I will have to defend myself in public or in my own home. This is why there needs to continue to be high capacity magazines as well as a variety of weapons to choose from. Against military it is small for sure, but against common criminals law abiding citizens should be able to purchase a weapon of choice without government cutting those options off.

Carney finished the section regarding the assault weapons ban with the following:

“The president’s approach is that we should work with Congress where possible — and administratively where allowed — to advance common-sense measures that enhance our security, that keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have them, under existing law, but that protects Second Amendment rights, which the president thinks is an important goal as well.”

You see, we hear the “where possible” type of comment on things such as the cybersecurity bill, which Obama is considering using executive order to implement, which would be a clear violation of the powers he has under the Constitution. Not only that but Carney uses the phrase “deadly weapons.” Isn’t that interesting? Well now, according to TSA box cutters are deadly weapons and so are plastic knives, nail files, fingernail clippers. I mean if we are going to use the term “deadly weapon,” that really is in the eye of the beholder. Everything in our lives can be a deadly weapon, including some very well trained people!

Personally, I don’t care if people say, “Well other presidents have issued Executive Orders like that.” That doesn’t make it right. Law is to be made in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. don’t think if it came down to it that Barack Obama would not seek to implement such an EO, if he so desired. The question is, how would our elected representatives respond to such a measure?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/white-house-confirms-obama-wants-to-ban-guns/#ixzz22xxJDl8u


Subscribe to comments feed Comments (0 posted)

total: | displaying:

Post your comment

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Underline
  • Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Captcha

Log in

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Rate this article

0
Powered by Vivvo CMS v4.5.2