PDA

View Full Version : Antigun provisions in Obama's latest budget


bulgron
02-16-2012, 1:04 PM
I know there are some people around here who are thinking that Obama isn't "that bad" when it comes to guns. But if you actually care about gun rights (as opposed to just kind of pretending to support then when doing so doesn't cause you any other pain), here's more evidence why you need to vote for the GOP candidate this year, no matter who they end up nominating.

In the latest budget to come from Obama:

- Obama is looking to reclaim authority to destroy surplus M1 Garand rifles and M1 Carbines.

- Obama wants to force the military to melt down spent brass, instead of recycling it by selling it to the civilian market.

- Obama wants to restore millions in funding to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control so they can pump out junk science studies claiming handguns are a public health hazard.

- Obama wants to rescind a provision from a previous appropriations bill that prohibits federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times. This provision was easily passed with massive bi-partisan support, but now Obama wants to remove it, saying that it "isn't necessary." Yeah, right, because the Fast & Furious scandal never happened, and having never happened, couldn't possibly ever happen again.

You can read about this in more detail here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/15/obamas-fast-and-furious-spin/

I know without a shadow of a doubt that there are people around here who won't vote Republican this fall because they think Obama isn't that bad, or they have a strong distaste for the social positions that some of the GOP candidates have. Well, you're going to have to make a choice. Obama really is that bad. You need to get that drilled into your head right now. And, having accepted that, you have to decide if you're in or you're out. Are you going to support and protect the second amendment, or are you going to vote based on "other issues?"

If it's to be "other issues," then are you willing to stand up and admit that you aren't really interested in supporting the Second Amendment? Or are you going to just keep pretending that you do, so long as it's convenient and easy?

Personally, I don't like the stance that the GOP candidates are taking on social issues either. But I know that they can go only so far in advancing those issues, given how much focus the nation puts on them. But gun rights? Gun rights are something that Obama is prepared to destroy under the radar. And except for people on boards such as this one, no one will notice.

So, again, are you in?

Or are you out?

Rock6.3
02-16-2012, 1:12 PM
Something is not aligning here. The website does report what you indicated, but the budget document (appendix) says:

[SEC. 8017. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense
may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand
rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols,
or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition
components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under
Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components
are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable
or unsafe for further use.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

bulgron
02-16-2012, 1:24 PM
Okay, I'll have to read through the entire stupid thing in order to find the things that the reporter is talking about. There's a couple hundred pages here, so stay tuned.

(I know that the last point I made is an issue of omission, so some of this stuff might not be called out directly in the budget proposal.)

IVC
02-16-2012, 1:46 PM
If it's to be "other issues," then are you willing to stand up and admit that you aren't really interested in supporting the Second Amendment? Or are you going to just keep pretending that you do, so long as it's convenient and easy?

Slow down. Single-issue voters come in different flavors. There are many facets of life that are not connected to guns that people feel strongly about.

a1c
02-16-2012, 1:52 PM
Okay, I'll have to read through the entire stupid thing in order to find the things that the reporter is talking about.

She is NOT a reporter. Miller is the senior editor of the Opinion section. Your mistake was to think this was a factual report, when it's an editorial piece. This is an election year. It's obviously a good idea, as you are now doing, to investigate this by yourself, instead of buying some opinion column's spin.

Tempus
02-16-2012, 2:34 PM
Her bio

http://www.emilymillerdc.com/contact/about/emily-miller-biography/

k55f
02-16-2012, 2:40 PM
Slow down. Single-issue voters come in different flavors. There are many facets of life that are not connected to guns that people feel strongly about.
I'm voting for the guys that don't prostitute themselves to the highest bidder. I guess I just won't vote this time.

OleCuss
02-16-2012, 2:49 PM
Understandable.

My standards are somewhat lower. I'll vote for the &$@*! that is least likely to get my family and my rights killed.

Goosebrown
02-16-2012, 3:45 PM
My standards are somewhat lower. I'll vote for the &$@*! that is least likely to get my family and my rights killed.

That is my position too. I don't like Republicans on social issues in general, but I know I am going to lose more with Obama in office again than I will with the Republicans. Most important of all though is the Supreme Court. There may be 4 appointments this next presidential term. That would guarantee our gun rights for a generation or loose them in one four year term.

clutchy
02-16-2012, 3:52 PM
There's nothing more dangerous to gun rights than a termed out democrat...

SilverTauron
02-16-2012, 4:05 PM
The die is cast for gun control after November regardless of who we vote for.

If the election comes down to Romney vs Obama ill vote for Romney on the principle that he knows the Federal deficit isn't counted like golf scores, but no matter who wins expect some bad news on the gun rights issues.

Romney passed an Assault Weapons Ban in his home state during his term as Governor, and Obama has stated he wishes to make moves regarding gun control in his second term

Under Obama I can see a federal AWB being promoted. Under Romney we can look forward to smaller 'concessions' to the leftist bloc, such as nationwide CCW registration or a national magazine capacity law as a stand-alone rule.

Cut the red wire & the bomb explodes. Cut the blue and the bomb still goes off.

keenkeen
02-16-2012, 4:14 PM
We are supposed to be worried about the "anti-gun" parts of an Obama budget?

I don't think the last 3 Obama budgets have been passed so why worry about slanting every detail of this one and trying to make is seem scary to people who belive in gun rights?

mag360
02-16-2012, 4:24 PM
the difference is that romney was a governor of a state with an anti rkba legislature, and Obama is just a dyed in the wool anti gunner. I do not think Romney actively pushed for the AWB even if he said "this will do good" when he signed it.

berg
02-16-2012, 4:39 PM
I thought it was congress, not a president, who passes bills.

RMP91
02-16-2012, 4:45 PM
I thought it was congress, not a president, who passes bills.

Checks and Balances are the only thing keeping Obama from his goals of Dictatorship. That, and the Constitution.

jdberger
02-16-2012, 4:55 PM
Checks and Balances are the only thing keeping Obama from his goals of Dictatorship. That, and the Constitution.

And about 300 million americans....

Geez..the hyperbole is strong with this one.... :rolleyes:

highpowermatch
02-16-2012, 5:25 PM
Vote on who will make better judicial appointments. Omamas Judicial appointments... no bueno!

Slidesauce
02-16-2012, 5:35 PM
...Cut the red wire & the bomb explodes. Cut the blue and the bomb still goes off.
Nicely put. This conversation seems to be quite polarizing.

Wherryj
02-16-2012, 5:51 PM
Slow down. Single-issue voters come in different flavors. There are many facets of life that are not connected to guns that people feel strongly about.

Apparently one of the single-issue topics is the desire to use the Constitution as toilet paper?

jeffrice6
02-16-2012, 5:54 PM
Ron Paul!!!!

Mesa Tactical
02-16-2012, 6:41 PM
Something is not aligning here. The website does report what you indicated, but the budget document (appendix) says:

He's quoting the Washington Times, after all.

KGenter
02-16-2012, 6:50 PM
+ 1 for Ron Paul

As the NRA says, Vote Freedom First!

OHOD
02-16-2012, 6:54 PM
- Obama wants to restore millions in funding to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control so they can pump out junk science studies claiming handguns are a public health hazard.



I wrote a Blog about this not long ago.
Told you it would happen. I think a couple of folks scoffed at my claim it could happen.

The truth is, there is a direct correlation to public health and community violence. You can't argue about this with me because I will win, did a Masters level community nursing paper about the topic. It's not going to be junk science.

^^^^Re-read what I wrote "community violence". Not hand gun violence.
But! There is a correlation between gang violence and hand guns, so you can fill in the blanks.

Here is a scenario for you.....

The government will restrict health care funding to your community, unless you have strong anti-gun legislation in place. All in the name of community health.

Mark my words.

taperxz
02-16-2012, 7:00 PM
Heller, McDonald , Peterson?

IVC
02-16-2012, 7:17 PM
Apparently one of the single-issue topics is the desire to use the Constitution as toilet paper?

Too much dramatization. The only point is that there are many single-issue voters. Most are single-issue party-line voters who will vote their party no matter what. Then there are single-issue voters on business, environment, vegetarians, vegans, gunnies, greenies, gays, minorities, you name it...

The candidates, on the other hand, come only as a package. No matter who you vote for or why, someone from the above single-issue groups will be at your throat for not supporting what's near and dear to them.

SilverTauron
02-16-2012, 7:46 PM
the difference is that romney was a governor of a state with an anti rkba legislature, and Obama is just a dyed in the wool anti gunner. I do not think Romney actively pushed for the AWB even if he said "this will do good" when he signed it.

I can respect Obama's stance , in much the same way as Admiral Nimitz respected the Japanese Navy. He at least is behaving according to his political principles corrupt and illegal as they are.

Romney is the guy who sells his allegiance to the highest bidder. You name the Massachusetts legislature as being anti RKBA and thus responsible for Romney's choice to abrogate the rights of his citizens.Exactly what does this say for our rights when Mitt Romney, POTUS, is in the Oval Office and a Democrat Majority Senate is in place?

You can never judge a politician by his words.Only that which he or she votes for can count as an indicator of what they will do in the future.From this vantage point Obama and Romney are so similar they could be related, minus the fact that Romney knows 2+2=4, and 1-2=-1. By comparison negative numbers seem to be a challenge for B. Hussein Obama.

Hunt
02-16-2012, 9:17 PM
Hunter S Thompson wrote, "when **** run the country ^&%$* rise to the top. The stench coming from our political centers is so bad they all need to be flushed.

Librarian
02-16-2012, 9:26 PM
Thread drift.

Discussing actual budget provisions that enact, enable or support Federal activities we might call 'gun control' is legitimate.

This thread started there, and stayed there about 3 more posts.

Closed.