Obama says he ain't gonna take away the guns.- REALLY?

[M]

Lets try and pick this apart, The italics in parenthesis are my added rebuttals and not part of the 0riginal piece;

link;http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/258285-obama-im-no...

October 27, 2015, 05:37 pm

Obama: I'm not going to 'take everyone's guns away'

By Jordan Fabian

President Obama on Tuesday dismissed the notion that he is seeking to take away people’s firearms as he delivered his latest call for stronger gun laws. 

(There is a movement by every dictator that comes when they are starting out; they speak as a friend of the public and try to assuage fears about what they are doing to their populace.)

Speaking to police chiefs in Chicago, Obama sought to rebut the argument made by conservatives, which he said is designed to stoke fear.

(There is a valid reason for the people to fear what he is saying. Every Dictator has said words similar to that in the beginning)

“Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everyone’s guns away,” he told the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

“Every time a mass shootings happens, one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of guns and ammunition jumps up because folks scared into thinking that, ‘Obama’s gonna use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights,’” he added. “Nobody’s doing that."

(The increase in the purchasing of guns by the public is in response of them wanting to protect themselves, criminals rarely buy guns, and the guns they have are usually stolen.)

"We’re talking about common-sense measures to make criminals don’t get them, to make sure background checks work, to make sure that we’re protecting ourselves.” 

Obama’s sought to convince top law enforcement officials that enacting tougher national gun laws would cut down on the number of officers killed in the line of duty. 

(To refute that just look to Chicago, New York, Massachusetts,in fact any city or state that has draconian gun laws)

The president's Chicago trip was also designed to rally law enforcement support for his effort to change the nation's sentencing laws. 

Obama is seeking to enlist police as allies at an uneasy time for law enforcement. 

Officers are under greater scrutiny than ever following a string of police-related deaths of unarmed black men across the country, some of which were caught on video.

(I tend to wonder how much of this has been brought about by Obama and his penchant for chastising the police on a regular basis making it look like they are always in the wrong or that they are motivated by racism.?)

At the same time, an uptick in violent crime in certain U.S. cities has put officers at greater risk in the line of duty

(Again this could be mainly contributed to Obama's agenda with the Dept. of Justice in very selectively enforcing the laws according to his agenda instead of the laws real intent.).). 

The Justice Department released a new report in conjunction with Obama’s speech showing an increase in ambush attacks against police over the past decade, even though rates are still down from highs in the 1990s.

(Look at the FBI statistics and draw your own conclusions as to what caused that uptick in the 1990's. Could it possibly have been Bill Clinton's stand on gun laws? You decide.)

“I understand we won’t all agree on this issue, but it’s time to be honest, fewer gun safety laws don’t mean more freedom, they mean more danger.” Obama said. “Certainly more danger to police. More grieving families, more Americans terrified their loved ones could be next.”

(This to me is typical blind Socialist/Liberal gun grabber illogic. Look at the devastation in the artificial gun free zones, especially the Campuses where the serial killers ploy their trade in relative safety. Every single one of these tragedies could have been either stopped or the body count greatly reduced if the law abiding public could have been armed. It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point; You don't see Police going in unarmed now do you?)

Before his speech, Obama met with the spouses and children of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, as well as families of bystander victims of gun violence in Chicago, the White House said. 

“I refuse to accept the notion that we couldn’t have prevented some of those murders, and suicides and kept more families whole,” the president said. 

(The really sad fact is that he's right about preventing some of those incidents, but not the way he wants to do it. His way will only increase the gun violence from the criminal and lunatic element that never obey laws anyway!)

Obama has renewed his push for new gun laws following a mass shooting earlier this month at a community college in Oregon. His initial effort, after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, included expanded background checks and bans on assault weapons. 

(Think of how many lives could have been saved if there had been an armed student or teacher who would have been able to KILL the perpetrator early on. Yes I said KILL, and I meant it.As I see it the only reason to shoot someone is because they are in process of trying to kill others themselves. It may seem outrageous to those blinded/brainwashed by Liberal illogic, but the only moral reason to take a life is to save a life.) 

But the package failed in Congress in the face of opposition from gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, and Republicans who are united in the view that new gun laws would violate Americans' Second Amendment rights.

(This is one of very few times Congress acted against Obama when he was restricting or taking away our Constitutional rights for some nebulous reason.( 

Obama is now weighing executive actions to impose new background check requirements on certain gun sellers. 

( This is typical of that egotistical pompous ass when he doesn't get his way, he reacts like a spoiled brain damaged three year old throwing a temper tantrum to go around the Congress and Legislate through his executive orders.)

Seeking to stop Obama’s latest effort, some Republicans have argued the president is prepared to confiscate guns from Americans.

(I believe Congress is right on this assumption, given all of Obama's and the Uber-Liberal Lest's agenda to disarm the public. It's no secret they want us to have no way to protect ourselves from them and keep us weak and vulnerable just like Hitler did to the Jews, Stalin did to those who opposed him, and Mao did to his countrymen. Over 100 Million innocent people were murdered by these Left wing gun grabbers once they had their public defenseless.)

“You know, the president is thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away,” GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump said last week at a rally in Anderson, S.C. 

Others have argued the irony of Obama’s decision to take his case to Chicago, which has seen record levels of gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country. 

(I believe that Chicago has even stricter gun laws than even New York but get this, illinois does not register the guns that are sold, it registers the gun owners. It also showcases the need for the public to be able to defend themselves from the massive Criminal attacks that are the result of a technically dis-armed public which has no means to defend itself from violent gun wielding criminal thugs.Is that the end game you and the rest of the gun grabbers want Mr. President?)

The Windy City had seen 2,300 shootings this year as of the end of September, up by 400 at the same point in 2014. Homicides have jumped by 21 percent. 

“The untold secret in Washington is that [Obama] has all the laws he needs to stop the bloodshed now,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said Tuesday.

“Under the existing federal gun laws, he could take every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun and criminal gangbanger with a gun off the streets tomorrow and lock them up for five years or more. But he won’t do it.” 

(I believe he won't do it so he can engender a greater fear in the docile brainwashed liberal public that their only hope is to take away the guns. This is a ploy also used by all the Dictators of thelast century,)

But Obama countered that Chicago is a great example of why there needs to be a uniform approach to gun control, pointing out 60 percent of guns recovered from crime scenes in the city come from out of state.  

(He probably figured that statistic out because the guns from out of State are usually registered and listed as lost or stolen. He also makes a case against his agenda by showing that there is not and never will be any control over illegal guns in the hands of Criminals.)

“It is easier for a lot of young people in this city, and in a lot of your communities, to buy a gun than buy a book,” he said. “It is easier in some communities to find a gun than to find fresh vegetables in a supermarket. That’s a fact.” 

( He even confirms and gives credence to the stance of gun groups who have been saying the same things in defense of legal gun ownership by law abiding citizens.In short, you can't stop illegal guns from getting in the hands of criminals who will use them for violent criminal acts.)

Remember this historical fact;

The founders put the 2nd amendment in to allow the citizens of America have a way to defend themselves primarily from their own government should it ever get to the point it is almost at today!

[M]

Beginning to get the overall picture?

[charles royer]

Mass shootings IN GUN FREE ZONES!

[charles royer]

Secret military operations to divert LAX planes for a week
Six years ago, ABC7 cameras captured a military operation in downtown LA. Helicopters were seen swooping between high-rises, close enough that residents were able to see armed soldiers in camouflage outside their window.

Authorities claimed it was part of a training exercise designed to ensure the military's ability to operate in urban environments, and to prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployment.

What's going on this week is a mystery.
http://abc7.com/news/secret-military-operations-to-divert-lax-plane...

[Virginia Foulk]

Nov 5th, I copied M's discussion and shared it on Stop This Insanity. Here is a reply from Voted Perot - thought it would be interesting to share.

" One part of the overall picture is the lefts argument that the second amendment intention was to guarantee a well armed and organised militia.

 If this tack was taken by the supreme court it would effectivy do two things.

  Millions of Americans wouldn't or couldn't get to roll calls and the definition of well regulated militia would create an immense burden on the state and the people that think this is a good idea. Not to mention the citizen that is scrapping along financially or worse.
  Even if  the states and counties granted  a huge drill area far from any town and guaranteed the privacy of the militiamen, there would be NO assurance that weapons registry's would not take place.
  In short, handicap the Law Abiding citizen instead of the criminal. Simply defining what a well organised militia is, is problematic, Probably tied up in the courts for a decade.  still in the end making a bad guy out of a previously good guy  
 

 On the other hand the guy that has anything more than 1 sidearm 1 shotgun 1high powered rifle
(of any description) and a plinker, Say, (Breath Deep) Joe Fisbine and his 50 weapon arsenal that would require eleven different cartriges to support and is on food stamps and a mortage wile procuring them is a problem in the regard "dose this guy have his prioritys straight to begin with" category (Did you breath deep for the R.O. Sentence?) and that dear friends i where the rubber would really begin to spin and smoke.
  How much Discriminatory power will the Colonel have within his ranks and those who would join his worthy cause.
 Who would set the standards at the state level, that would comply with a Federal policy.
 Ideas any one?.

  #2  The supreme court has been through this a number of times since communism was invented
The forcing of a referendum at the state would so completely alienate a huge and coincidentally armed cross section that the most likely outcome would be the rise of non sanctioned militia AKA GANGS !
The real fear the government should have, is that THESE! gangs, will have patriotism as unifier and retired officers and special forces As leaders.  Anybody want to go to the second annual 50 States Jamboree? AKA Civil war.
  Not me, no thanks, I am with the Supreams on this K.I.S.S.  KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.
set a standard for mental health and the developmentally challenged even that shouldn't fly,but might now.
  Everybody in America deserves two things in this regard. A steady non government JOB!
and A media that isn't bringing up the Horrors instead of the happiness.
    
     VP"

[M]

The Original official definition of Militia during Colonial times was all able bodied people.

[M]

My Buddy the Tradesman came up with a rather interesting amendment proposal in regards to the 2nd Amendment;

Pursuant to the 2nd Amendment, the rights of the people themselves to keep and bear Non-Nuclear Arms of any kind available to the military branches, shall not be infringed by Federal, Congressional, Supreme Court or Executive Orders or Enacted Laws. Without the active consent of 7/ 8 of the State Legislatures and a 75% approval rate by the people in a National Referendum.

a. In addition all laws, ordinances,restrictions, et.al. on the books are declared vacated and rendered Null and Void and Unenforceable.

b. State laws may be enacted with agreement of 7/8 of the sitting legislators and a 90% approval by the Citizens of the State. In this matter State Laws duly enacted and signed by the State Governors will supersede any and all Federal Laws to the Contrary excepting the rights granted by the 2nd amendment to all citizens not incarcerated and having attained the age of majority.To further clarify, that means the Right of Law Abiding People to Keep and Bear Arms Cannot be Rescinded or taken away.