Obama's History of Draconian Gun Control

[Len Backus]

I'll give the mainstream media this: They're consistent. They're consistently ignoring Barack Obama's statements that he "supports" the Second Amendment, and they're also consistently ignoring Senator Obama's repeated calls for the kind of gun control that would spell the end of the Second Amendment as we know it.

Back in 1999, (Bottom of this page) Obama called for a laundry list of gun control, including a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition. He called for bans of affordable handguns. He called for mandated "smart gun" technology. He demanded that FFLs not be allowed to maintain their business within five miles of a school or a park. In short, he wanted to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence.

To my knowledge, not one reporter has asked Obama about the positions he took back then. Nor have they asked him about the position he's taking now, "supporting" the Second Amendment in speeches while refusing to sign on to the congressional amicus brief opposing the District of Columbia's gun ban. Fifty-five of his fellow senators signed on to that brief, but Obama still pretends the issue is about "local control," not constitutional rights.

When the mainstream media refuses to ask a presidential frontrunner about his position on an issue, you can't help but wonder why. When the issue is the Second Amendment, it can't be because the press doesn't like what Obama has to say. Maybe it's just that they don't want you to hear it.
=============================================

Obama and Gun Control:

His record isn't likely to win back the rural "pro-gun" voters who've fled to the Republicans in recent years, likely costing Gore the election in 2000. From the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999:

Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.

At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he's backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a "shot-free" millennium celebration.

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. [!!!]

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.

Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He's also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.

Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.

[jonoMT]

Len,

I'm surprised this post hasn't generated any comments. Or am I looking in the wrong place?

Anyway, I think the main reason most Democrat politicians have a record of gun control positions is that they are elected from urban areas - where gun crime is a big problem. Obviously - when applied to the entire country - those positions are overkill. What bothers me about the opposite position is that it is equally extreme. You can't go on forever with an all-or-nothing, one-size-fits-all approach.

We do need to address the problems faced by inner cities and at the same time allow responsible gun owners as many freedoms as possible. Ideally, I will vote for the people who come up with the most reasonable, plausible solutions. However, guns are far down the list of my concerns for the upcoming election. I may have to hold my nose when I vote, but I'll choose the lesser of the three evils currently posing as front runners.

Jon

[Rupe]

I will not vote for anyone that is trying to change one of the original Amendments that our country was founded on. To me the 2nd Amendment is first on my list because it was one of the original Amendments and we can't not have a president that is willing or wanting to change what made our country in the first place. Then we are right back to being slaves to the government. We will not have any arms to fight the government if they decide to turn us into something we don't want such as a police state/country, or Communist or what have you. As of now we could be called to arms if need be. If we were attacked by another country at least there would be a bunch of us out there able to resist and fight back with our own firearms. The police aren't going to beable to stop them without our help. Our military can't get into position fast enough to defend our shores, so it is upto us law biding citizens with the right to bare arms to be the first to fight just like our fore fathers did in thier day. Sorry for rambling on, but I just don't have any use for a president that doesn't keep our Constitution close to thier heart and mind.

[jeffersonv]

I'll have to go along with Rupe. If you don't support the founding fathers intentions when they forged this freest, most prosperous nation in the history of man, you may want to think of relocating to France, or some other like country.

Why you ask take this love it or leave it stance?

I would ask a stronger question as to why eliminate the ONLY country that still stands (remotely at least) on these wonderful founding principals.

We already have a world full of PC/socialist/stupid-@$$ nations, take this one away and there will be nowhere for people seeking freedom and opportunity to go to!

On the other hand, this excuse that me may need firearms to defend against tyranny or invasion is pretty much mute at this point.
If that day were ever to come, it would have come already. Our government now routinely sells us out (while still collecting our taxes) right and left without fear of repercussion from "we the people". We carelessly endure the looting from the largest invasion of a nation in history which takes far more lives (not to mention many other resources) than the official "enemy", terror.

Well I guess this post got me started. If my words here sound harsh, maybe you need to stop believing everything you hear from the PC media/school system/"special" interests, and start learning what freedom throughout history has cost and how precious it really is.

If you don't, you deserve an Obama.

[Ron5050]

Our country was built on individualism. We have lost that. We have taken God out of school and government. Most of the press is anti-gun, no help there.
The 2nd adment protects the first adment and all others.