Obama: Guns a Greater Threat than Terrorism

[Jeff]

Obama wants to go down in history so bad as the guy that changed the Constitution it is unreal, and in doing so ( if he ever gets his way ) he will also be the president responsible for the complete take down of this Country. Take away guns from Law abiding citizens and then we won't have to worry about terrorism at all, hell why worry when all you can do is roll over and die, cause you sure as hell won't be able to protect you or yours. Obama has this going on as a Liberal on this board ( along with millions across the Country ) makes jokes about a compounds that are guarded by guys with AK's, you know when you think of folks like that it is easy to see why Obama is sitting in the WH.

He can't understand ( or rather wants to ignore ) if they simply enforce the laws they already have in place, and fix them so human error doesn't come into play, many of those that committed the mass murders ( that got their guns legally, or using the background check ) wouldn't have them, case in point the physco in Charleston, Roof, human error got him the gun that killed those 9 folks, no his Conservative parents didn't give it to him as stated by one poster and the Rebel flag had nothing to do with arming him either, he filled out the paper work and it should of been caught that he was a felon, but it wasn't.


(Breitbart) – When Obama spoke to BBC last week he stressed his frustration over not being able to secure more gun control and suggested that the guns outweigh terrorism as a threat to Americans’ safety.
Obama’s exact words: “If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands.”
In the lead up to this statement, Obama mentioned “mass killings” with guns but did not mention mass killings or attempted mass killings in which those holding the guns were jihadists.


http://www.teaparty.org/obama-guns-greater-threat-terrorism-110042/

[Drummond]

Something else Obama pointed out in his BBC interview - I recorded one of the several reruns the BBC News channel insisted upon transmitting - is that (by his own modest reckoning !) he's more popular abroad than in the country he's President over !

I think it would be fair to say that he enjoys popularity in those countries that see eye-to-eye with what he stands for (the one exception possibly being Kenya, considering his diplomatic gaffe over the 'gay rights' issue). What does it say for a President when that FAILS to be the very country he plays his part in governing ?

[Balu]

Guns do not kill. Men are killing.
My POV - he sees the problem in a wrong place.

[gabosaurus]

In your daily life, are you more likely to be killed by a terrorist or a crazy person with a gun?

[Balu]

In your daily life, are you more likely to be killed by a terrorist or a crazy person with a gun?
Judging by a number of victims, more likely you'll suffer from terrorists.

[Jeff]

In your daily life, are you more likely to be killed by a terrorist or a crazy person with a gun?

Me personally, a terrorist. I have no worries about a guy with a gun, I do worry about planes falling into buildings, poison gas being released and other stuff like that, but a lone gunman, naa unless of course it is like many of the mass Killing the idiot in charge talks about, a terrorist with all kinds of guns attacking a gun free zone, now yea that concerns me.

[Jeff]

Judging by a number of victims, more likely you'll suffer from terrorists.

People forget many of the killings you hear about are domestic terrorist,personally I don't like the word domestic unless it was a American that did it but it is what it is.

[gabosaurus]

Think about all the mass murderers that have inflicted themselves on American society. The one link is that they have all been white males.

Instead of debating gun control, we should turn our attention to mental health. Or the lack of such. We have a lot of military veterans and former police officers who suffer from either PTSD or a similar affliction. Not only do we not treat them, but we refuse to admit they exist.
How many people with PTSD or other stress related illnesses own weapons? Do their second amendment rights allow them to be ticking time bombs?

[Jeff]

Think about all the mass murderers that have inflicted themselves on American society. The one link is that they have all been white males.

The shooter in Chattanooga ???

Instead of debating gun control, we should turn our attention to mental health. Or the lack of such. We have a lot of military veterans and former police officers who suffer from either PTSD or a similar affliction. Not only do we not treat them, but we refuse to admit they exist.
How many people with PTSD or other stress related illnesses own weapons? Do their second amendment rights allow them to be ticking time bombs?

I agree mental illness is a major issue, if they somehow could fix the present background check they have it would stop a lot of folks from obtaining a gun. A simple Human error can and does give some of these killers their weapons. But then you look at Chicago, I seriously doubt any of the guns that kill every weekend aare bought legally, and yes these thugs have mental illnesses but I don't think a Doc is going to fix them.

[gabosaurus]

I agree mental illness is a major issue, if they somehow could fix the present background check they have it would stop a lot of folks from obtaining a gun.

It could be fixed. But the NRA will not allow it. Same way they gutted the Brady Bill.
The Second Amendment allows citizens to own firearms. It doesn't say what kind of weapons (or ammo) you can or can't own. It doesn't prevent the government from registering guns.
Even Reagan opposed military style weapons like AK-47s. The gun lobby probably believes Reagan was a liberal commie.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I have one. I know how to use it.
Guns should be registered. So should ammo. If the police go to your home to serve a warrant, they deserve to know if you have a closet full of assault rifles.
Same with the five-day waiting period and mandatory background check.
I don't see how this violates the second amendment. No one is saying you can't own a weapon. But there has to be rules.

[tailfins]

In your daily life, are you more likely to be killed by a terrorist or a crazy person with a gun?

Bring up a gun is a canard. A Molotov Cocktail will do just fine.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It could be fixed. But the NRA will not allow it. Same way they gutted the Brady Bill.
The Second Amendment allows citizens to own firearms. It doesn't say what kind of weapons (or ammo) you can or can't own. It doesn't prevent the government from registering guns.
Even Reagan opposed military style weapons like AK-47s. The gun lobby probably believes Reagan was a liberal commie.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I have one. I know how to use it.
Guns should be registered. So should ammo. If the police go to your home to serve a warrant, they deserve to know if you have a closet full of assault rifles.
Same with the five-day waiting period and mandatory background check.
I don't see how this violates the second amendment. No one is saying you can't own a weapon. But there has to be rules.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

--Shall not be infringed, read it . These regulations are all infringements. And WE that understand how,
one chops down a tree with one axe-chop at a time are a crime see the goal being pursued which is entirely unconstitutional. (death by a thousand cuts still ends with Death, the targeted result being achievement, although by a very much slower path).--Tyr


Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the
Amendment's intended scope.
On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.
Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174.
The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could
regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms
Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court
then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of
the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue
in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the
constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years.
Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court,
meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the
Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right
for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that
right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may
possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any
law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry
that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment.

Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations
prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen
the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521).
The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban,
which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions,
the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held
that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However,
the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates
the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito
and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated
that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent
than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their
dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply
when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir.
2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon.
US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of
juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester,

[Jeff]

It could be fixed. But the NRA will not allow it. Same way they gutted the Brady Bill.
The Second Amendment allows citizens to own firearms. It doesn't say what kind of weapons (or ammo) you can or can't own. It doesn't prevent the government from registering guns.
Even Reagan opposed military style weapons like AK-47s. The gun lobby probably believes Reagan was a liberal commie.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I have one. I know how to use it.
Guns should be registered. So should ammo. If the police go to your home to serve a warrant, they deserve to know if you have a closet full of assault rifles.
Same with the five-day waiting period and mandatory background check.
I don't see how this violates the second amendment. No one is saying you can't own a weapon. But there has to be rules.

The only reason guns would be registered is so the Government would know where to come and take the legal citizens guns, criminals don't register guns.

As for the police knowing what a person has, well read above, and just for shits and giggles you are saying that it is OK for me to have my hunting rifle but I shouldn't have say a AR15 ???

As for a mandatory background check, there already is one, I believe what you are talking about is where a private seller sells to another, but even at the gun shows ( yes most liberals scream how you can buy guns there with no background check ) they have you fill out the form and call it in. As for the 5 day waiting list, do you honestly believe if someone is going to kill folks with a gun a 5 day period they will magically change them ?? Look at the idiot from SC, Roof, he was going to kill whether it was that week or the following, and lets be honest you can buy a gun any day of the week all day long illegally without any check or waiting period, and lets face it folks that kill usually aren't the law abiding citizen types.

There are plenty of rules and regulations already, how about if they just enforce them, the reason Obama ( and other libs ) cry how things must be changed is because they want to revamp the entire system and throw BS in the laws so eventually they will make them all illegal. Every time the NRA goes to battle against the gun grabbers it is because there is a lot more in the law they are trying to pass than just what you are told, example... they wanted to get rid of assault weapons, but the way the law read was any long gun with a pistol grip ( like on a AR) would be illegal, so that made at least a 1/3 of hunting guns illegal, and the law was so stupid because not all assault rifles even have pistol grips, or they wanted a limit on how many bullets can be in a magazine, they wanted no more than 7 if I remember correctly, yes that would of made most weapons illegal, this is why the NRA and other organizations are so important, without them Obama would of taken guns from law abiding citizens long ago.

Gabs how many law abiding citizens going on killing spree's ?? I have owned guns for a long time and have never had to pull any out for anything other than hunting or target practice and God willing I never will. Just as in the case in Charleston, if they had done the background check thoroughly and no human error had happened then Roof would of had to go to the streets to buy a gun, he wasn't getting one legally, it is now known a screw up is why he was sold a gun.

[DragonStryk72]

Obama wants to go down in history so bad as the guy that changed the Constitution it is unreal, and in doing so ( if he ever gets his way ) he will also be the president responsible for the complete take down of this Country. Take away guns from Law abiding citizens and then we won't have to worry about terrorism at all, hell why worry when all you can do is roll over and die, cause you sure as hell won't be able to protect you or yours. Obama has this going on as a Liberal on this board ( along with millions across the Country ) makes jokes about a compounds that are guarded by guys with AK's, you know when you think of folks like that it is easy to see why Obama is sitting in the WH.

He can't understand ( or rather wants to ignore ) if they simply enforce the laws they already have in place, and fix them so human error doesn't come into play, many of those that committed the mass murders ( that got their guns legally, or using the background check ) wouldn't have them, case in point the physco in Charleston, Roof, human error got him the gun that killed those 9 folks, no his Conservative parents didn't give it to him as stated by one poster and the Rebel flag had nothing to do with arming him either, he filled out the paper work and it should of been caught that he was a felon, but it wasn't.



http://www.teaparty.org/obama-guns-greater-threat-terrorism-110042/

In the strictest sense... he's right. I mean, not cause guns are bad, oh no. It's just that fighting the terrorists is a lot like playing a double amputee at swingball: There's not ratio where it works out well for them, and any points they get are either because we feel bad, or were horribly distracted at a critical moment.