President Obama Shows His True Gun Control Agenda

President Obama Shows His True Gun Control Agenda
President Obama Shows His True Gun Control Agenda
NRA - Institute for Legislative Action
NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- Most of the media attention on President Obama’s renewed calls for gun control has focused on the tone of his remarks, rather than on the substance of what he said.

You don’t have to scratch very deep, however, to understand that what the president really wants to see in the U.S. is gun confiscation. Reiterating his support for gun control last week, Obama vowed, “I am going to talk about this, on a regular basis, and I will politicize it.…”

For once, we are willing to take the president at his word.

Clearly, the president is infuriated with Congress and the American people for failing to adopt his gun control agenda, but what is he actually promoting by way of solutions? His recent speeches have been long on vitriol, but short on specifics.

Just as clearly, the president has been unwilling to entertain any idea that mass murders can be adequately addressed by means other than gun control. In his Oct. 2 remarks, for example, he dismissed talk of mental health reform, such as that supported by the NRA. He insisted that anger, mental illness, and violence are problems that all nations face, but the U.S. is unique in its level of “mass shootings” and “gun violence.” He admitted, “Levels of violence are on par, between the United States and other countries.” But because American violence more often involves firearms, firearms must be blamed.

Rather surprisingly, the president undermined the gun control movement’s current push for so-called “universal background checks.” According to the president, “we can’t sort through and identify ahead of time who might take actions like this….” It’s hard to argue he’s wrong, as the latest tragedy he is politicizing was once again committed, according to ATF, with firearms obtained through dealers, after successful background checks

The president has something more ambitious in mind, and he’s been consistent on this point for almost two years. As he has time after time in the past, the president on Oct. 1 invoked Australia and Great Britain – what he called “countries like ours” – as models for the U.S. They “have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president lectured. They prove “there are ways to prevent it.” 

What Obama is really proposing, despite some platitudes to the contrary, is the end of private firearm ownership for self-defense – which is essentially what happened in Australia and the U.K. Below are summaries of those nationslaws from the Library of Congress that make the point:

There is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Australia and Great Britain.

If you want to own a firearm in either country, you must first obtain the government’s permission, and you must prove to their satisfaction that you need it. Self-defense is neither a sufficient nor even legitimate reason to own a gun. 

The most popular firearms in America are banned in Australia and Great Britain, no matter what a person’s reasons for owing them. Australia bans AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. Great Britain bans handguns.

After the bans were enacted, both countries forced residents to surrender prohibited guns to the government.

When the president complains that America refuses to enact “common-sense gun-safety laws” and rails against the ability of America to amass “arsenals” of guns and ammunition, confiscation is what he really has in mind. To this end, he scoffed at the idea that more Americans should be armed or that anyone could in good faith oppose more gun control. “Does anybody really believe that?” he asked.

Obama has made it clear that he will continue to politicize tragedies in order to push his gun control agenda. That’s really nothing new. What is new is his admission that what he really wants to do is confiscate legally owned firearms. 

Rest assured, the five million men and women of the National Rifle Association will continue to fight him every step of the way.

About the NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, please visit: www.nra.org. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

AmmoLand Encourages you to Join the NRA today!
8 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sally Tudor

Well, I would like to see Obama BANNED!! He is the biggest security threat today!! He has proven by his words, and his actions, that he is a LIAR, a THIEF, a MARXIST, a MUSLIM, and a TERRORIST!! There is NO WAY IN HELL, the POS will ever take our guns, or stop us from defending ourselves! He is the biggest reason to make DAMN SURE, that we hang onto our Rights and our U.S. Constitution!!

Raymond Miller

Every place that is controlled by Democrats and their anti gun laws are in place have the highest % of murder compared to places without those laws. They know the truth, they only want to disarm us so it will be easier to turn us into slaves with them as the elitist rulers.
REMEMBER, ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE DEMOCRATS IS JUST AS DUMB AS THAN THE OTHER TWO !

Tommy T

Resolution Passed in 1969 at UofB, Niagara Region SDS Conference. Attended by Obama’s mentors and their solidarity Muslim Brotherhood “Freedom Fighters” (terrorists) in struggle. Confiscation of firearms owned by US citizens is imperative for their communist Revolution to be a success.
This confiscation for public safety is a bunch of Bull Dung.
They just want a clear road to victory without confrontation.

I was there!
TTT

JoeUSooner

Obama and America’s anti-gun groups loudly praise the draconian anti-gun statutes in Australia and England. However… The disarming of Australia was not successful. Following Australia’s mandatory 1996 gun “buy-back” program, the number of gun-related deaths did decrease slightly – although it remains triple the US per capita murder rate – yet Australia’s other violent crime rates (robbery, assault, burglary, rape, etc) more than quadrupled! Admittedly, not quite as many Australians were shot to death, but well over four times as many (compared to before the buy-back program) were victims of other armed violence. That’s not in any way a good… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD

The nwo needs your guns
Since they arent getting them
They cant wait forever
So a complete world wide economic failure is coming
Defeat gun owners that way…..

Havent you heard of the one world kingdom of revelation

the elite suck it in the end so dont worry…..

Janek

Thanks to Obama the United States probably won’t see another African-American President for a very long time. And it’s not because we’re racist, we elected him didn’t we? Maybe it’s time for a Jew?

Phil

#FeelTheBern!

C C Haagenson

Both Australia & Britain are both island nations, and you’d think a cordon would make “control’ of contraband easier. And they still have their gun (and assault knife, oh, my!) troubles. And still, Manchester=Gunchester in England.