Obama Assurance on Guns Leaves Open Question of What He Is Out to Do

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_02 Oct. 28 19.07
“That’s why the IACP believes we shouldn’t sell military-style assault weapons to civilians. They don't need them. (Applause.) They don't need them to hunt a deer. It's just a simple proposition — cops should not be out-armed by the criminals that they’re pursuing. (Applause.)” [Screen shot: The White House speech video]
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA – -(Ammoland.com)-“Please do not believe this notion that I’m out to take everyone's guns away,” Barack Obama pleaded in his Tuesday speech before the International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference in Chicago (watch here).

“Nobody is doing that. We're talking about common sense measures to make sure criminals don't get them.”

Actually, plenty of people are doing that, from increasing calls to repeal the Second Amendment to Hillary Clinton asserting the Supreme Court got it wrong when it ruled 2A an individual right, to Hillary and Obama himself entertaining Australian-style “gun control,” which entailed gun bans and government collection of firearms. That's what “progressives” mean by “common sense measures.”

Next we need to look at who Obama was talking to. The globalist IACP is on record opposing citizen ownership of militia-suitable ammunition, firearms and body armor.  They oppose efforts to roll back restrictions on the right to bear arms. They’re for enforcing existing Intolerable Acts, a “no guns” list, waiting periods, and ending private sales. And those are just the cards they’ve shown. For now.

It’s fitting the group met in Chicago, home of Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, a monopoly of violence fanatic who has condemned gun owners for being politically active, and told them he’s training his guys to shoot first and ask questions later when encountering armed citizens. Bearing in mind that with “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, we can see how that would be championed as a “common sense gun safety measure.”

So must be this revealing endorsement:

So what does Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez have to say for herself? “We strongly believe we need to strengthen our gun laws,” her spokeswoman told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I don’t think that anybody should be able to own guns,” Alvarez has said.

But nobody’s talking about that, right?

Here’s something else nobody’s talking about: How much “gun control” will be enough?

Every time some monster takes predictable advantage of “No Self-Defense/Predator Enabling Zones,” the “something must be done” blood dancers drown out all hope of truly common sense solutions. Instead they trot out registration of the law-abiding masked as “universal background checks,” and Soviet-style “mental health” schemes, all the while admitting what they’re demanding probably wouldn’t have made a difference in this case – but just wait ‘til next time! And the forehead-slapper here is, that generally results in calls from certain vested interests ostensibly on “our side,” for “compromise.”

That, of course, is a fool’s game, not only because “deals” presume to offer up concessions that aren’t the negotiators’ to make, but also because it presupposes gun-grabbers — happy to make incremental gains before screaming their next set of demands — will ever be satisfied.  It makes as much sense as throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and believing that will fill them up, induce them to go away and leave you alone.

“I don't believe that he CAN take the guns away but I sure enough believe that he is ‘out’ (strongly desires) to do so,” comment poster “Bad Cyborg” remarked on The War on Guns blog. “It is abundantly clear to me and anybody else who reads what the leftists write that the ultimate goal of all ‘gun control’ is total disarmament of the population in the manner of the subjects of Great Britain.”

Yes, and more, probably along the lines of how RKBA is treated in the People’s Republic of China when it’s all said and done, assuming the gun-grabbers get their way without provoking mass defiance, noncompliance, physical resistance and more.  So how about, just so everyone has a clear picture of the end game, the “gun control” advocates define what it will take to satisfy them,  and what “laws” must pass for them to not only stop pushing for more, but to join in condemning and resisting new infringements?

Realizing they’re not homogeneous, I’d expect different satisfaction benchmarks for the more tepid groups, like Americans for Responsible Solutions, and others that have even more oppressive demands. Those include the Bradys, Everytown, VPC and the like, all the way up (or down, depending on how you look at it) to Democratic Socialists of America, who like to sing about killing the bourgeoisie with knives and guns while stumping for disarmament.

Since they’re the ones telling us they’re only interested in “common sense” and “safety,” they should specifically and unequivocally define all the “laws” they want to see enacted, at which point they will say “No more,” and use their influence to oppose any organization or politician wanting to go farther.

They won’t of course. And here’s the dilemma — even if they did, key players in the Totalitarian Lobby have proven time and again what liars they are, so why should we believe them?

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

25
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
14 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
21 Comment authors
EricJody LkevinAmmolandTred Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Eric
Guest
Eric

He’s 50/50 white /black so he’s neither

kevin
Guest
kevin

I guess the oath of office doesn’t mean anything either. So much for”protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Hillary s statement considering Australian type confiscation should disqualify her.

South Tex
Guest
South Tex

I wish we could get the word out about how many mass shooters took psyc drugs. There is a tie to those meds. I heard the drug companies are pushing hard to silence this fact.

Ammoland
Admin

@South Tex, you might want to share this article far and wide… “Every Mass Shooting Shares One Thing In Common & It’s NOT Weapons

jamie
Guest
jamie

Don’t worry Obama is on the way out and he never actually does what he says he is going to do anyway.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent

Congrats! You win the ‘head in the sand’ award for the year. Your prize: disdain from those folks who know what unethical politicians like the Pimp in Chief are capable of (at any time during their term).

Tom T
Guest
Tom T

The barrier of the armed citizens, protected by the 2A, is the only reason the POTUS has not yet, subjected us to his agenda of totalitarian rule.
He and his rogue administration will never give back the ground they have taken in the last 7 years without one hell of a fight. Disarming the patriotic citizens is a must to insure their success. Time is running out!
Check out the history of gun control by taking time to watch this very well done video “Innocents Betrayed

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/innocents-betrayed/

Janek
Guest
Janek

The Democratic party’s ‘anti-gun’ acolytes think constantly repeating the ‘Big Lie’ will eventually lead the populace to believe them.

munchie
Guest
munchie

And they will. Why do you think kids are kicked out of school for a pop tart or finger gun, an NRA t-shirt or simply drawing a crude picture of a gun with a crayon? These kids will vote in just one more generation, and they are being taught now, that guns have to go, that they are evil. In just two generations, if a national vote was held too repeal the 2nd amendment, how do you think it would go?

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent

The Bill of Rights can’t be repealed by a vote of anybody. They merely re-affirm our God given rights that existed even before government came along. Kind of like putting the law of gravity up to a vote.

Graham
Guest
Graham

I really believe this **acting** President – mr obama, does in fact really see himself as the “new” Lincoln.
His goal mass civil unrest, a new war of oppression, only this time it won’t be against The South.
Historically the way to get “the people” to accept, unreasonable and unconstitutional actions of a Government, is to get “the people” to demand it…
Every single socialist/”communist” country is wretched to live in, ironic that Russia is becoming more free, as the libra-left drive us further into the cesspool of socialism

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent

‘War of oppression’? Don’t you think that blacks were oppressed by slavery or does that not count in your revisionist view of American history?

Tred
Guest
Tred

Hey Clark; Slavery ended more than a 130+ years ago. No one living today has any responsibility or duty to “make right” for Sh*t that happened to blacks then. Today white people are sick and tired of hearing about it and frankly no longer give two sh*ts if blacks today can’t get over it.

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

“The people should vote from the rooftops!” Emilio Zapata

Tom Curran
Guest
Tom Curran

Don’t you just love how the gun grabbers have everyone totally bamboozled with their saccharine sweet ” common sense ” ” reasonable ” self described “smart ” new gun laws . Which they never can actual spelll out in specific proposals …just vague con job BS . Anyone that votes for The queen of mean , Hillary deserves to have the 2 A rights stripped away as she clearly wants to do. God Bless America

D. Murphy
Guest
D. Murphy

Any gun owner who votes democatic in 2016, deserves what will be coming to them.

Farmer
Guest
Farmer

Let’s expand that a bit. Any gun owner (or Evangelical Christian) who sits on their butt instead of voting – deserves what they get. Face it folks – when 50 million Christians sit out the election like last time …. well, you can see the results now.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent

AMEN!

kerdasi amaq
Guest
kerdasi amaq

“Shoot first and ask questions later”, I guess that tactic will work for a short while.

Jody L
Guest
Jody L

You know, that goes for both sides of the fence as well.

Allen Runyon
Guest
Allen Runyon

They can pass all the laws they want too. If the gun owners of this country will stick together. There nothing the government can do. The 2nd amendment only conferms what is our God given right. The founding Fathers had to fight to gain their freedom from england. We might just have to get our hands dirty to keep our freedoms. Do you want to live in slavery to the government or do you want to keep your freedom. I would rather die on my feet, live on my knees.

jamie
Guest
jamie

And the second amendment only affirms the rights that we already have to self defense.

Richard J. Medicus
Guest
Richard J. Medicus

A gun control SJW proposed that to buy a gun the purchaser should be shot to demonstrate the effects of the misuse of a gun. Personally, I believe he has it exactly backwards. Everyone that expouses gun control should find out what it is like to suffer the “No Gun” zone dilemma of an active shooter.

TEX
Guest
TEX

When the black African muslim says he’s not out to take our firearms that’s such a relief to me because he will never get them anyway,none of them.

Stu
Guest
Stu

Tex is correct. You still want my firearms, come and *try* to take them!