Why is this leftist government trying so hard to disarm its people?

2015-10-05T06:16:21-04:00

What is really behind Obamas constant attemts to disarm America? Is this why he wants a nationalized police force so badly?

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Oct 5 at 2015 6:19 AM

2015-10-05T06:19:36-04:00

Is he really trying to disarm us? It seems that even he knows that would be near impossible without an armed revolt by the people who support the 2nd Amendment.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Oct 5 at 2015 6:33 AM

2015-10-05T06:33:58-04:00

Here are his proposals after Newtown; no confiscation, but there are enhanced background checks for mental health.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 5 at 2015 6:37 AM

2015-10-05T06:37:46-04:00

No one is trying to take your guns. There IS a group however that is very happy for you to continue thinking that though... I wonder who it could be...

http://www.whitsundaytimes.com.au/news/us-gun-sales-soar-after-mass-shooting-oregon/2796059/

US gun sales soar after mass shooting in Oregon

US gun sales have soared following the mass-shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, which killed 10 people

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 5 at 2015 6:48 AM

2015-10-05T06:48:30-04:00

An armed society is a polite society. A disarmed society is a subservient society. The government does not grant us our rights, they are unalienable. The notion that some would think they can be taken away by government demonstrates how far we have slipped already.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 5 at 2015 7:05 AM

2015-10-05T07:05:57-04:00

Philosophical difference.

The goal is always to get to the root of the problem. Always. Unfortunately, there are those who view "access to arms" as the root of the problem. They believe that removing access will solve the issue.

Unfortunately, it does solve a "symptom of the problem" but often transfers the issue elsewhere.

If we take a look at all the complaints of "(easy) access to firearms" which are generally speaking: Suicides & Violence, removing a specific tool doesn't fix those. Countries with "no" access still have those problems at similar rates. Removing guns doesn't fix Suicide. Removing guns doesn't fix violence.

Now, there is the argument regarding "potential for harm" in that knives can cause less harm than firearms. That's a great argument, however we already have as many guns as people, and confiscation is not going to happen. It's a non-starter. Additionally, violence as a trend has been declining for 30+ years, so quantitatively the issue is dropping as well. And then finally medicine is reaching the point where it's not "as true" as it used to be. So the argument's merits are just dwindling based on era.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 7:09 AM

2015-10-05T07:09:36-04:00

The left is not trying to disarm people. A few lefties maybe, but the whole of the left machine? No dude, that's just paranoia talking. I mean seriously, it's easier to buy a gun than a car and they are both quite lethal in the wrong hands. My biggest thing is that most of the super pro guns people who rant on and on about "leftist" anti gun policies have put in years of practice and are reasonable, safe, and responcible around firearms. Is it so unreasonable to try to make sure that everyone who purchases a firearm is held up to some measurable standard of safety prior to taking ownership?

You have to pass a test and be licensed before you can own and operate your own car, which then has to be registered . . . Not stopping anyone from doing it the correct way, now is it? Why not do at least that much for firearms.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 7:33 AM

2015-10-05T07:33:58-04:00

SGT Private RallyPoint Member In effect it is the same thing regarding disarming because if those few hold power those few can do what they wish.....

Response by 2LT Scott Armstrong made Oct 5 at 2015 7:39 AM

2015-10-05T07:39:26-04:00

Control and a fundamental cultural difference.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 7:51 AM

2015-10-05T07:51:50-04:00

It is dependency that a government wanted. To disarm the public, mean public will need to relay on police force for many incidents, that will justified a lot of tax increase too, and politician can easily campaign that they increase police force funding, just like education. Every time there is a discussion of education, increase funding. Imagine the same situation with police forces.

on the other more crazy side, to disarm public also take away the threat to the political elitist from the public, and therefore their power can meet less resistance, a "king" class of elitist can surface.

and many more explanation too, pick anyone of it ... it will feel like they are all the right answer.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Oct 5 at 2015 7:56 AM

2015-10-05T07:56:07-04:00

SrA Art Siatkowsky Great question. My opinion is he is an ultra liberal and has forgotten a large reason the United States (CONUS) has never been invaded is the impression that everyone has a firearm. Secondly, he fails to acknowledge that when the laws are enforced stringently people tend to violate the law less. When we have liberal enforcement polices which result in less incarceration and a generalized lack of enforcement, the result is a lawless society. Next, we have a mental health problem. The stigma associated with asking for help is alive and well, and real diagnosis of mental disease, defect, or disorder which should preclude someone from possessing a firearm until successful treatment is completed are few and far between. Finally, even though he is a Constitutional attorney, he seems to forget the Constitution, and he is so left he is unable to see the wrong as well as danger in a proposal of gun grabbing. Is he trying to grab guns or is he going to propose meaningful legislation to attempt to ensure only appropriate and vetted persons have access to firearms? These are just my opinions. Thanks for asking a great question.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Oct 5 at 2015 8:20 AM

2015-10-05T08:20:47-04:00

Because liberals believe in government control and look to intensify its control.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 5 at 2015 9:57 AM

2015-10-05T09:57:20-04:00

Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men? I guess we have to ask The Shadow for the answer to this one... Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. The truth is that there probably is no one reason. There are those well-intentioned leaders who want us to take the road to hell with them (although they don't see that as their destination). There may be those who have tyrannical intentions and need for us to be disarmed. And, there are many shadings of reason in between. Finally there are those who are simply responding to the express desires of the masses who fear guns. These are the ones who "lead from behind".

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 11:37 AM

2015-10-05T11:37:17-04:00

The leftist weather underground and their lineage had a plan. You don't have to imagine much considering most of the D leadership are all students of Saul Alinsky and were part of the 60's marxism movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote: "You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russian. They hated Russians. They Hated Christians....

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Oct 5 at 2015 12:33 PM

2015-10-05T12:33:58-04:00

Do you have any evidence of this aside from some opinions expressed by a couple of people who have never actually tried? Any at all? No, didn't think so.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 5 at 2015 1:43 PM

2015-10-05T13:43:37-04:00

Could you explain how the POTUS is taking away weapons from law abiding citizens (not media speculation, but actual laws or proposed laws), and how he wants a nationalized police force? I could be very well wrong, but he's proposed gun legislation to make it harder to attain weapons, but nothing to take them away. The VA letter thing goes back to a law that was passed when he was still teaching college. And the nationalized police force? I'm all for an argument, but I don't see where he actually HAS done anything to actively take away anything. And before anyone say's I'm an Obama fanboy, I'm not per se. But I clearly recognize that lamestream media has a way of making green skittles seem like a mistake Obama made.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 4:26 PM

2015-10-05T16:26:29-04:00

I'm not sure if confiscation is in the president's plans. But it doesn't take a whole lot to see that many of of these "sensible gun laws" would make it a hell of a lot easier for the government to target homes for confiscation if it were to ever happen. To prevent further tragedies, people mention gun registration, limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms, limiting the amount of firearms an individual can own, and finally requiring mental health checks of all buyers.

Looking at gun registration, everyone points to car registration as an example as if gun registration would solve the problem of mass shootings. The truth is, it wouldn't change a thing. The reason vehicle registration works is that it allows the government to punish you after you commit a crime. The threat of being tracked down and punished afterwards is a good incentive to not break traffic laws. However, that whole reasoning completely breaks down if you try to apply it to the type of people committing mass shootings. For instance, they're not the type of people to be dissuaded by possible future punishment. Most of these shootings have ended in suicide, or death by cop; it's reasonable to assume that these individuals go into it knowing they're going to die shortly after. Having their gun tracked down after the fact does not dissuade them.

Limiting ownership will likewise not end these shootings either. You can commit a mass atrocity just as easily with a single revolver if no one else is armed. A lot of heat is directed towards the AR-15 platform for its alleged role in these shootings. And there are a lot of myths about what these rifles can do if you were to talk to your typical gun control supporter. I think there is a real fear among gun owners that certain firearms will be unfairly targeted if registration and partial confiscation were ever enacted. The fact is, a single pistol is more dangerous than a rifle simply due to the fact of easy concealment. Limiting the amount or types of firearms an individual can own will not change the fact that a sick individual with any single firearm produced after the advent of the repeating action will be able to inflict horrible casualties against a room of unarmed people.

The only possible act that could possibly reduce the occurrence of these tragedies is screening every individual who buys a gun for mental instability. I'm not going to get into whether such screenings would be a violation of gun owner's 4th Amendment Rights or not. However, this still won't prevent unstable individuals from stealing firearms from relatives, friends, or procuring them in some other illegal way. Further, absence of firearms have not prevented horrible deaths in the past. One only needs to look at the Oklahoma City Bombings to know just dangerous someone can be without a firearm.

The real issue we need to look at is that our homicide rate is absurdly high in certain cities. It has less to do with gun control or lack thereof, and everything to do with poverty and lack of economic mobility. You don't have to look into the FBI database for long to find a correlation between poverty and crime, and between crime, and homicide rates. Most of our homicides in this country are perpetrated by criminals with existing criminal records, against other criminals with existing criminal records. The truth is, if you're a middle class person in the US, you're as safe, if not safer, than anyone in another modern country with strict gun control laws. If we want to reduce that homicide rate, we need to focus on why poverty is so rampant. These shooting tragedies however, are statistically anomalies. Other countries experience them too, sometimes with deaths counts that dwarf what happens here in the US. It doesn't reduce how tragic they are, but it's important to get it straight that mass shootings do not significantly affect the homicide rate in this country.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-10-05T19:53:02-04:00

It is what they run on. Like planned parenthood and the environment.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 5 at 2015 8:40 PM

2015-10-05T20:40:45-04:00

Yet another misinformed and conspiratorial post. Well done.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 9:27 PM

2015-10-05T21:27:37-04:00

It's the first step to controlling everyone. It was one of the first things the nazis and communists did.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 10:23 PM

2015-10-05T22:23:19-04:00

For those saying that it is nothing more than paranoia, here are a small sample of the things that are driving the "hysteria".

I could list hundreds of thousands, but i'll keep it to the point. The first is the fairly recent announcement that the Department of Justice is launching the Strong Cities Network, which is a United Nations "world police" force that will be working within the United States to "combat domestic and International terrorism." Don't believe it? I don't blame you, I didn't either...
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/launch-strong-cities-network-strengthen-community-resilience-against-violent-extremism
http://strongcitiesnetwork.org/

White house press secretary Joshua Earnest, “The president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them. That’s something that is ongoing here.”

President Obama on Australia style gun confiscation, "Australia just said, well that's it, we're not doing that again, and basically imposed very severe and tough gun laws and they haven't had a mass shooting since."

Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky: https://youtu.be/BVz2lHODQvs

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, "Confiscation could be an option... mandatory sale to the state could be an option"

California Senator Dianne Feinstein (among the billion other stupid quotes, after leading the assualt weapons ban in 1995) “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” https://youtu.be/1_LaBJvI0BI

This isn't even getting into the Clinton's, The Brady Foundation, and all the other nutcases who buy into the BS that these gun laws work. Now, explain to me what purpose does a registration system serve? Is my gun being registered in my name going to prevent me from shooting someone? Is it going to prevent my wife from shooting someone, or someone who breaks into my house and steals it? Ok, so what about background checks right? Who is going to ensure that I don't transfer weapons to someone without bringing it to the store for them to get a background check? Why would I not make the deal under the table to save me and the buyer the fee for running the check? BTW, in order for a background check to stop someone from owning a gun, they have to have a criminal history. (And it's already required except for private sale) Most of the mass shootings were from people who had psychological history, not criminal history. Want to do medical screenings? Who gets to decide what is classified as a psychological condition warranting you to lose your guns? PTSD? ADD? Depression? 1:4 American's have a diagnosable mental disorder, do they all lose their rights or just some of them?

Well who needs an assault weapon, all they are for is mass shootings and war, right? Wrong, not only are they used for sporting, hunting in many conditions, etc. they are one of the least used weapons in murders. Not only that, but all of the characteristics of the weapons that make it an "assault weapon" can be easily removed without changing the functioning of the weapon at all. For example: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/ny_safe_act_see_what_makes_an_assault_weapon_illegal.html This weapons manufacture was able to create an AR-15 fully "Assault Weapon Ban Compliant" without changing the weapons functioning at all. Oh, by the way, they may be a popular firearm, but Charles Whitman killed his mother, his wife and 14 others, while wounding 32 others with a bolt-action deer rifle.

So, rather than make the debate over, what type of "gun control" we can enforce, how about looking for solutions to the society of psychopaths that we are creating. Why not figure out why 20 years ago, if a kid was being bullied, it lead to a fistfight after school and detention, and now it leads to a school shooting. Why not figure out why, when in most cases, the warning signs are there long before the attack, why nothing is done to prevent it. Why not focus on the real issue, which is a society that has no value of human life, and find ways to change that. Why not find out why 1/3 of homeless people are schizophrenic because our system for taking care of the mental unstable is completely broken... rant over...

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Assault Weapons ban 'Just the Beginning'

A Democrat Illinois congresswoman openly admits that going after Assault Weapons is only the beginning. Banning handguns is also on the agenda.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 5 at 2015 10:45 PM

2015-10-05T22:45:34-04:00

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 6 at 2015 1:19 AM

2015-10-06T01:19:53-04:00

I have alot of saved references for this topic but unlike facebook where I can easily link from multiple sources… I dont see the option with this app.

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 6 at 2015 7:46 AM

2015-10-06T07:46:49-04:00

The actual confiscation of weapons has never been a proposal, and the wish to change what you can buy is not the same as taking what you have. This hysteria is the problem, your original statement was not factual in any way. Honorable people can disagree, but this is ridiculous; I have no problem with people who disagree with the President, but our country does not have time for one side to have a debate with their imagination.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 7:53 AM

2015-10-06T07:53:57-04:00

I think it's their desire to see fewer innocent people killed at schools, movie theaters, bases, and other public places. I have yet to see a hard move towards disarming us, but stricter gun laws and a stronger ATF seems like a good start in the right direction.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 6 at 2015 6:47 PM

2015-10-06T18:47:30-04:00

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Oct 7 at 2015 1:43 AM

2015-10-07T01:43:37-04:00

why is the rightist government trying so hard to convince the public of conspiracies?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 7 at 2015 12:04 PM

2015-10-07T12:04:17-04:00

In fact, they all do it in some form or fashion. Makes for good politics to bring in the left votes.

"A majority of Americans agree with" a ban on assault weapons. "And by the way, so did Ronald Reagan."
— Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 16th, 2013 in in a speech

Response by SGT Dana Williams made Oct 7 at 2015 1:18 PM

2015-10-07T13:18:52-04:00

Hitler started by nationalizing healthcare (Obamacare?) and followed up with gun registration ... and confiscation from any considered politically unreliable. He's just following the lead of his idols!

Response by SSG Patrick Ryan made Oct 7 at 2015 4:33 PM

2015-10-07T16:33:09-04:00

easier to control the masses

Response by SSG Patrick Ryan made Oct 7 at 2015 4:34 PM

2015-10-07T16:34:04-04:00

easier to control the masses

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 7 at 2015 4:40 PM

2015-10-07T16:40:58-04:00

Obama wants a nationalized and militarized police force to further his agenda of taking more of our rights away. He won't be successful, the 2cd Amendment protects us plus, he is becoming more "lame" every day. Good Riddance, I hope the motorcade that takes him and Michael away from the WH on his last day takes him to an undisclosed Supermax. The girls can go back to Central Casting. He is nothing but a meat puppet anyway, after he is gone the CIA should hunt down and kill George Soros. I would throw the biggest party ever.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Oct 7 at 2015 11:53 PM

2015-10-07T23:53:30-04:00

I cannot add to this...

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Oct 8 at 2015 10:23 AM

2015-10-08T10:23:48-04:00

Because the Liberals are afraid of us; and not the enemy.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Oct 28 at 2015 3:25 AM

2015-10-28T03:25:10-04:00

It's because leftists believe they know what is better for you than you could ever possibly figure out for yourself. If you have a weapon, you could hurt yourself with it.

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Mar 13 at 2018 2:36 AM

2018-03-13T02:36:52-04:00

The irony is that Obama was the best salesman for firearms in the history of the country. The more he talked about gun control the more people bought guns.