Obama: 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns'

[eyer]

Author Quotes Then-Professor Obama Saying, 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns'

In his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John R. Lott Jr., assesses the presidency of Barack Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago.

In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.

"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.

"He did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together," Lott writes.

After he introduced himself to Obama, Lott suggested that they have lunch one day to discuss their views on guns. According to Lott, Obama "grimaced and turned away." That was the way many conversations with Obama ended, Lott says.

Although the Law School was famous for the openness of its faculty and friendly engagement, Lott says, "Obama...preferred silent, scowling disdain to collegiality."

President Barack Obama describes his views on guns much differently now that he is on the national stage, Lott believes, pointing to an interview on Fox News in which Obama states, "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right."

But, Lott isn't convinced:

"Despite his assurance to Fox News that he understands the Second Amendment, it's a good bet that the positions Obama took on guns during his time at Chicago reveal his true convictions."

The chapter documents the actions that Obama has taken on guns, citing the following:

In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores

Mr. Lott concludes the chapter, titled, "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered," writing, "Barack Obama is the most anti-gun president ever. That claim is based not on my own interactions with him back in the 1990's but on his own public record over many years."

He ends with a warning:

"The greatest threat is in his [Obama's] power to reshape the federal courts...Each appointment to the Supreme Court could determine whether the people are allowed to keep their guns."

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...sor-obama-saying-i-dont-believe-people-should

I don't doubt that last line for a millisecond...

...for I believe it is the President's exact strategy.

And the GB progressives can't wait...

 

[phrodeau]

And in four years in the most powerful office in the world, he has done absolutely nothing to take away anybody's guns.

 

[mercury14]

And in four years in the most powerful office in the world, he has done absolutely nothing to take away anybody's guns.

Facts don't matter to Eyer. All that matters is the mythical story line he chooses to believe. It's like reading the Hobbit instead of taking a US history course.

 

[coastal-boy]

I see no evidence other than "an opinion of an author seeking to sell books". Must be fact.

 

[eyer]

And in four years in the most powerful office in the world, he has done absolutely nothing to take away anybody's guns.

And why do you think that is, frodo?

 

[eyer]

Facts don't matter to Eyer. All that matters is the mythical story line he chooses to believe. It's like reading the Hobbit instead of taking a US history course.

You mean "a US history course" like this one you mastered:

...the president doesn't have to submit a budget and historically it's not done.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=40494637&postcount=16

Too friggin' funny...

...you statist piece of sh!t.

 

[mercury14]

And why do you think that is, frodo?

Even when Obama is not taking our guns you still say he's guilty.

 

[mercury14]

You mean "a US history course" like this one you mastered:



Too friggin' funny...

...you statist piece of sh!t.

Why not link the rest of that thread where I specified that I meant the president doesn't have to submit a budget for automatic congressional spending and then linked a source to back it up?

You eschew honesty in favor of out-of-context quote mining. That's why you're a fraud.

 

[eyer]

Why not link the rest of that thread where I specified that I meant the president doesn't have to submit a budget for automatic congressional spending and then linked a source to back it up?

You eschew honesty in favor of out-of-context quote mining. That's why you're a fraud.

Like the last time you tried to wiggle-out of your very own words by lying...

...the link above includes your entire post - exactly what you said, and totally in context.

And truth doesn't give a crap what you "specified that" you "meant"...

...what you meant is exactly what you posted in the link I provide.

You wouldn't recognize "honesty" if it slapped you upside your statist piece of sh!t face...

...now: get with frodo and the -boy and go fetch Obama's voting record on guns, huh? That oughta prove what a "fraud" I am, right?

Like when he was running for the IL Senate and he completed a questionnaire from a Chicago non-profit, Independent Voters of Illinois, who asked this question of all candidates (Obama's answers directly follow each question):

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

Like when he was an IL Senator and he voted against allowing a citizen to defend himself by bearing arms during a home invasion if the locality the victim was living in banned weapons...

...he was one of the 20 losers in that 38-20 Senate vote.

Or, also as a IL Senator, when he cosponsored a bill that would limit all handgun purchases by law abiding citizens to 1 a month...

...and lost again.

What about the 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test which graded State Senator Obama as supporting the following gun principles:

- Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

-Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

And how 'bout when he was a US Senator and voted in favor of banning all handguns in the District of Columbia, but still proclaimed he was pro-2nd Amendment?

And yet...

...you disingenuous pieces of partisan crap fly the bullcrap banner that Obama doesn't want to take anyone's unalienable right to bear arms away.

You're on record as supporting the President assassinating American citizens with no Constitutional due process afforded that citizen first...

...you're also on record as supporting the President indefinitely detaining American citizens with no Constitutional due process afforded that citizen first.

Your vote for Obama puts you on record as supporting the most Orwellian surveillance and tracking apparati of law-abiding citizens the world has ever known...

...yeah - you're as big of statist piece of sh!t as they come.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And in four years in the most powerful office in the world, he has done absolutely nothing to take away anybody's guns.

You mean, other than the Fast&Furious gambit and getting a judo hold on the Connecticut shooting and other events in order to rail against scary-looking guns form his bully pulpit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Eyer? what's the matter? do you not recognize a right-leaning pragmatic centrist when you see one?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That is why Obama remains in campaign mode.

He needs a Democratic House...



Then in his last two years, the velvet gloves come off.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

That is why Obama remains in campaign mode.

He needs a Democratic House...



Then in his last two years, the velvet gloves come off.

And it's a smart move. And he doesn't even have to do that much since the GOP will do half the work by shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[mercury14]

We've known all along the President is a pathological liar, well those of us with a brain.

Romney Supported Brady Bill And Assault Weapons Ban, Bragging His Stance Was “Not Going To Make Me The Hero Of The NRA.” “[Romney] said he will take stands that put him at odds with some traditional ultraconservative groups, and cited his support for the assault rifle ban and the Brady gun control law. ‘That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ he said. ‘I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.’” (Andrew Miga, “Mitt Rejects Right-Wing Aid,” Boston Herald, 9/23/94)

 Romney Praised Massachusetts’ Tough Gun Laws, Vowed Not To “Chip Away At Them” As Governor.
“[A]s the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state’s strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. ‘We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,’ he said. ‘I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.’” (Scott Helman, “Romney Retreats On Gun Control,” The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)

Then when he needed to get the GOP nomination he signed up for a lifetime NRA membership and flip-flopped his entire position on gun control overnight.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

You mean "a US history course" like this one you mastered:



Too friggin' funny...

...you statist piece of sh!t.

More like an "obstacle course".

Why not link the rest of that thread where I specified that I meant the president doesn't have to submit a budget for automatic congressional spending and then linked a source to back it up?

You eschew honesty in favor of out-of-context quote mining. That's why you're a fraud.

How quaint. While I have my own misgivings bout Eeyore, he does have you pegged right.

Don't bother to answer. I already know you won't give a direct response. You'll deflect from that and throw in something that has nothing to do w/his response to you in post #9.

 

[miles]

For the umpteenth time: there is absolutely nothing Obama can do or say that will make his supporters criticize him.

Deflect.
Deny.
Make personal attacks.

Aren't you people getting tired of lying to yourselves?

 

[Squibbs]

Eyerinflorida?

 

[mercury14]

Don't bother to answer. I already know you won't give a direct response. You'll deflect from that and throw in something that has nothing to do w/his response to you in post #9.

I'll give you a direct response, no problem bro. Okay let's say for a moment that I was mistaken about the history of one of the steps in the budget process. Does that mean I was lying or was I mistaken?

By the way I'd encourage you to go back and read the thread Eyer is linking. You'll see that I spelled out that I was talking about the Medicare budget, not the general budget. And I linked a source that backed my point: that the president doesn't have to come up with a budget for mandatory spending programs such as Medicare unless he's proposing changes in them. Eyer chooses to ignore the rest of what I said in favor of quote mining.

Here's the rest of what I was saying in that conversation which Eyer doesn't want you to hear:

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the president to submit an annual budget for federal government departments. That's merely a sub-section of the overall budget.

And Obama has done this every year.

Eyer, we're talking about the US congressional budget, not the budget that the president submits for the executive branch. You're either lying or legitimately confused, which is it?

The President's budget includes spending for federal/executive branch agencies as I said (as well as federal independent agencies). That's about one-third of total government spending.

The other 2/3 of government spending goes to permanently enacted entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The president does not have to submit a budget for these items.

Therefore I am correct in my comments and you are wrong. The law says that president's budget is only a subsection of the overall government budget.

Medicare is not a federal government department. Eyer doesn't want you to know I said that though because it exposes him as a fraud.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

Ok, Merc. I'll take that at face value. Though you left out a few things, like the thread topic. And the POTUS doesn't have to submit a budget for any of those items, but he does have to approve it doesn't he?

 

[SeaDaddy1]

And in four years in the most powerful office in the world, he has done absolutely nothing to take away anybody's guns.

You mean, other than the Fast&Furious gambit and getting a judo hold on the Connecticut shooting and other events in order to rail against scary-looking guns form his bully pulpit.

We've known all along the President is a pathological liar, well those of us with a brain.

2 words: Plausible deniability.

 

[mercury14]

Ok, Merc. I'll take that at face value. Though you left out a few things, like the thread topic. And the POTUS doesn't have to submit a budget for any of those items, but he does have to approve it doesn't he?

That thread topic... well yeah it got off track. I blame the moderators.

But no, the President doesn't have to approve of the Medicare budget, nor can he block it - there's no annual Medicare budget that gets signed off on. This is because it's set up as a general budget item, not a discretionary one, Therefore Medicare spends itself unless an Act of Congress amends or repeals it. Medicare is basically on autopilot.

And here we have the primary reason that conservatives are being dishonest when they accuse Obama of increasing spending. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all on autopilot and lie outside of what the president signs off on, as well as outside of the purview of the budget Obama submits to congress - and they're far and away the largest reasons for spending increases during his term. This spending is coming from Congress itself and it's not in the President's power to stop it.

 

[sufisaint]

Simply put the Democrats do not believe in freedom...you have no right to defend yourself or your country...the government controlled police and military are for that. They can watch you and search whenever they want under some guise of interstate commerce. You have no right to your own property...anything and everything will be taxed or taken away since government can spend away your earnings and your children's with out impunity. You shall buy what ever corporate products the government created monopolies sell you whether its insurance, energy or food. You have no right to a free press...all major media out lets are controlled by corporate interests whose lobbyists make backroom deals with the government. You have no right to teach your children right and wrong... all morality is set in law by pollster watching politicians who are safe in their gerrymander district with its numerous welfare recipients. There shall be no individual rights, individual responsibilities or consequences because the courts of law will tell you what you can and cannot do based on a blank piece of paper they call a living document. This is our future...our only hope is that this government beast runs out of credit and simply falls apart.

 

[mercury14]

Simply put the Democrats do not believe in freedom...you have no right to defend yourself or your country...the government controlled police and military are for that. They can watch you and search whenever they want under some guise of interstate commerce. You have no right to your own property...anything and everything will be taxed or taken away since government can spend away your earnings and your children's with out impunity. You shall buy what ever corporate products the government created monopolies sell you whether its insurance, energy or food. You have no right to a free press...all major media out lets are controlled by corporate interests whose lobbyists make backroom deals with the government. You have no right to teach your children right and wrong... all morality is set in law by pollster watching politicians who are safe in their gerrymander district with its numerous welfare recipients. There shall be no individual rights, individual responsibilities or consequences because the courts of law will tell you what you can and cannot do based on a blank piece of paper they call a living document. This is our future...our only hope is that this government beast runs out of credit and simply falls apart.

Basically nothing in this post is true.

 

[sufisaint]

Basically nothing in this post is true.

No ....you agree with nothing in this post but you think your opinion is the truth and that is why your party shall fail...you do not understand truth.