Obama's gun control lies

M

miles

Guest
In what was surely the most sickening display of presidential demagoguery in the history of the United States, President Obama wept – wept – crocodile tears in a calculated effort to gain the support of the ignorant, the clueless, and the stupid while announcing multiple violations of the Bill of Rights yesterday.

Obama's speech alternated between effeminate weeping, pleading, and sanctimonious, holier-than-thou indignation as he presented a litany of falsehoods, straw man arguments, and outright lies as justification for his plan to strip the American public of constitutionally enumerated rights:


The "Gun Show Loophole" Lie:

There is no "gun show loophole." Contrary to leftist mythology, criminals and terrorists don't skirt existing laws and purchase crateloads of guns at gun shows. Probably 95% or more of the vendors at gun shows are licensed dealers, who have to abide by the same federal regulations as they do in brick-and-mortar stores. Individual sellers who make an occasional sale are exempt from dealer regulations. Has Obama ever been to an actual gun show? The problem is not that there are too many individual sellers, but too few – dealers often charge inflated prices, while the individual offering a great deal because he needs a few bucks quick is a rarity.
Obama's real plan is to ultimately ban all private sales (including between family members) so that a paper trail exists on as many firearms as possible to facilitate government confiscation.


The "Internet Gun Sales" Lie:

Criminals do not buy guns on the internet. It is literally impossible to buy guns direct on the internet and have them shipped to your house. Even James Comey, director of the FBI, was ignorant of this fact when testifying before Congress recently. Like gun shows, 95% or more of the guns advertised on the internet are advertised by licensed dealers who must comply with federal law. Any transaction between private individuals that crosses state lines must be performed by a licensed dealer in the buyer's state. Under existing law, the internet can be used only to advertise guns, not supply them directly to a non-dealer.


The "Background Check" Lie:

The Constitution does not actually use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"; that concept is articulated by the Fifth Amendment, which says that the government shall not deprive citizens of "life, liberty, or property" without "due process of law" – meaning that the burden of proof always rests with the government before one's rights can be suspended. Background checks on gun buyers, which have been in effect for 20 years, are a violation of the Due Process Clause because they require the individual to get clearance from the government before he exercises his Second Amendment rights. Can you imagine government requiring a background check before you vote? Before you publish a newspaper article? Before you preach a sermon? Before you hire a lawyer? Of course not. The leftist emphasis on background checks is merely a foot-in-the-door enabling the government to steadily expand the criterion by which it may preemptively suspend your rights. This is precisely the danger posed by Obama's plan to conscript physicians into agents of the government for the purpose of entering your medical diagnoses into the background check system.


The "Smart Gun" Lie:

Obama's proposal included a push for so-called "smart gun" technology, in which a gun may not be fired unless a specific user is electronically authorized to do so. In a sickening display of lowbrow pandering, Obama equated this concept with childproof aspirin bottles and cell phone apps that prevent unauthorized use. Of course, such technology would enable the government to prevent the supposedly "authorized" owner from using the weapon as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/obamas_gun_control_lies.html
 
Remind us about who signed the extension of the Patriot act? Another Republcan, was it?
Right, because President Obama hates our Freedom and wants to turn all law-abiding citizens into criminals. And there's more proof. Obama was a Senator when the Patriot Act was re-authorized in 2005 as well.

Never mind that it was some other guys who started the whole thing.
 
Right, because President Obama hates our Freedom and wants to turn all law-abiding citizens into criminals. And there's more proof. Obama was a Senator when the Patriot Act was re-authorized in 2005 as well.

Never mind that it was some other guys who started the whole thing.

So your contention here is that but Mom they started it?

That this highly intrusive piece of legislation that was enacted in a time of great fear without considering what its unintended consequences would be is somehow worse than continuing the nonsense after we know what those consequences are?

You're actually defending that?
 
So your contention here is that but Mom they started it?

That this highly intrusive piece of legislation that was enacted in a time of great fear without considering what its unintended consequences would be is somehow worse than continuing the nonsense after we know what those consequences are?

You're actually defending that?
Bush also signed it in 2005, you know.
 
...

The "Gun Show Loophole" Lie:

There is no "gun show loophole." Contrary to leftist mythology, criminals and terrorists don't skirt existing laws and purchase crateloads of guns at gun shows. Probably 95% or more of the vendors at gun shows are licensed dealers, who have to abide by the same federal regulations as they do in brick-and-mortar stores. Individual sellers who make an occasional sale are exempt from dealer regulations. Has Obama ever been to an actual gun show? The problem is not that there are too many individual sellers, but too few – dealers often charge inflated prices, while the individual offering a great deal because he needs a few bucks quick is a rarity.
Obama's real plan is to ultimately ban all private sales (including between family members) so that a paper trail exists on as many firearms as possible to facilitate government confiscation.


...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/obamas_gun_control_lies.html


Dude: use your finger to follow the words on the screen and speak each one of them out loud. I'll even enlarge the text to make it easier to read.

Congress exempted gun shows from conducting background checks. Today's EO tries to override that.

Was that so hard?


Oy vey!
 

Oy vey indeed.

Exactly what background checks are a Gun Show supposed to conduct?

You cannot set up a booth at ANY Gun Show offering firearms for sale unless you are a licensed FFL holder. And as such you are required to conduct a background check on the purchaser of ANY firearm you sell. Where's the 'loop hole?'

Are the organizers going to be required to do background checks on anyone that walks through the door?

Ishmael
 
Oy vey indeed.

Exactly what background checks are a Gun Show supposed to conduct?

You cannot set up a booth at ANY Gun Show offering firearms for sale unless you are a licensed FFL holder. And as such you are required to conduct a background check on the purchaser of ANY firearm you sell. Where's the 'loop hole?'

Are the organizers going to be required to do background checks on anyone that walks through the door?

Ishmael

I have no idea. I've never been to a gun show and don't own any guns.

I simply posted two conflicting posts from Miles. If you have an issue with my post, take it up with him.
 
The devil is going to be in the details and we won't have a clue as to what those are until they're published in the Federal Register. But there are more than a few concerns.

For example, exactly what will be the definition of "engaged in the business of?" Lynch has already hinted that the sale of a single firearm might meet that definition. Which would require the seller to obtain an FFL so as to be able to do the background checks. Go the BATFE website to see what those requirements are.

The "Mental Health" reporting aspect of the new regs. Just exactly how is that going to work? Will the doctor be held culpable if he/she doesn't report to the government? Will the doctor be required to be a certified mental health professional? If not, why not? Believe it or not, I do agree with the intent behind this, but once more the devil will be in the details. And interestingly enough you folks may be surprised to see the ACLU jump all over this one, not the NRA.

What are the 230 new agents supposed to be doing? The Instant Check system is computerized. A few more clerk/typists may be required, but 230 sworn agents sitting at terminals doing data entry? Something is afoot here as Sherlock would say. Besides, BATFE is chartered to do the field work, investigations, etc. not the FBI.

Ishmael
 
Oy vey indeed.

Exactly what background checks are a Gun Show supposed to conduct?

You cannot set up a booth at ANY Gun Show offering firearms for sale unless you are a licensed FFL holder. And as such you are required to conduct a background check on the purchaser of ANY firearm you sell. Where's the 'loop hole?'

Are the organizers going to be required to do background checks on anyone that walks through the door?

Ishmael

God you're fucking dumb. You don't need a license to sell if you're a "private seller". That's theloop hole Obama's order is trying to close.
 
I hate to be relevant, but could someone please point out which of these objectives would've prevented any of the mass shootings the anti-gunners of the GB can't help but proclaim they're so distraught about?

Thanx so much.
 
Instead of addressing the OP Phroto fails trying to deflect the subject at hand..

Jesus, dude.
 
Oy vey indeed.

Exactly what background checks are a Gun Show supposed to conduct?

You cannot set up a booth at ANY Gun Show offering firearms for sale unless you are a licensed FFL holder. And as such you are required to conduct a background check on the purchaser of ANY firearm you sell. Where's the 'loop hole?'

It's myth #1 in the OP.

Apparently some people have reading comprehension issues.
 
God you're fucking dumb. You don't need a license to sell if you're a "private seller". That's theloop hole Obama's order is trying to close.

In other words, Obama hates the fact that buddies (or family) can sell guns to each other.

The problem is, how do you know a private sale has occurred?
 
I like the part where he cried.

sniff..I'm the president..sniff...of the united States of...sniff...America...sniff and wipe a tear away...and i can't do a damned thing about it because...sniff...its a free country...sniff
 
Several readers noted that if a person applies a dab of menthol or camphor to his fingertip, it can induce tears. Likely many of us are familiar with this when we inadvertently touch or rub our eye after we’ve used a substance that is irritating. (Bengay comes to mind.) It stings and causes one’s eye to get red and to tear – our body’s automatic response to remove the substance from our eye.

willmay posted that there are products called “tear stick” and “tear blower” readily available for actors who need to cry on cue. (Great product for con artists as well, no?) She had additional insights worthy of note, including her observation that Obama first wiped his left eye, and then “tears appear from that eye only.” (saksin also observed that Obama’s first wipe of one eye preceded any tears at all.)

Great points. Tears do not flow asymmetrically, with one eye tearing up while the other remains dry.

And if I might add, Obama wiped the left eye starting at the outer edge, wiping inward. Try doing that. You’ll realize that you have no muscle memory or any sense of familiarity with that gesture from times in life when you’ve cried. That’s because it’s abnormal, since tears emanate from the tiny hole in our tear ducts located at the inner rim of each eye. As Sons of Charlemagne noted, “tears don't flow from the outside corner of the eye.”



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/obamas_fake_tears.html#ixzz3wZqHNAbg
 
In other words, Obama hates the fact that buddies (or family) can sell guns to each other.

The problem is, how do you know a private sale has occurred?

See Australia, see handovers, see gun lockers, see massacres.

One of these things may not be true.
 
The devil is going to be in the details and we won't have a clue as to what those are until they're published in the Federal Register. But there are more than a few concerns.

For example, exactly what will be the definition of "engaged in the business of?" Lynch has already hinted that the sale of a single firearm might meet that definition. Which would require the seller to obtain an FFL so as to be able to do the background checks. Go the BATFE website to see what those requirements are.

The "Mental Health" reporting aspect of the new regs. Just exactly how is that going to work? Will the doctor be held culpable if he/she doesn't report to the government? Will the doctor be required to be a certified mental health professional? If not, why not? Believe it or not, I do agree with the intent behind this, but once more the devil will be in the details. And interestingly enough you folks may be surprised to see the ACLU jump all over this one, not the NRA.

What are the 230 new agents supposed to be doing? The Instant Check system is computerized. A few more clerk/typists may be required, but 230 sworn agents sitting at terminals doing data entry? Something is afoot here as Sherlock would say. Besides, BATFE is chartered to do the field work, investigations, etc. not the FBI.

Ishmael

u best be scared old brah da gubmint be comin fo yo guns!
 
Back
Top