Obama Introduces a Dozen New Regulations Aimed at Your Right to Bear Arms

It looks like Obama and the Justice Department are going to introduce roughly a dozen new regulations to limit the freedoms of Americans on gun ownership.

Many of these regulations will be aimed at those who are deemed to be mentally unfit for gun ownership. Others will work to limit the ability of those accused of domestic violence from obtaining or keeping weapons.

It's just another long list of regulations which clearly do infringe on a person's second amendment rights.

http://americanprosperity.com/obama-introduces-a-dozen-new-regulations-aimed-at-your-right-to-bear-arms/

They keep failing when anti-gun bills come up for a vote in congress, but they keep trying.

It makes you wonder what Constitutional law he was supposed to be a professor of

Oh they get it....they just want to get rid of all of it. And a part of the linked article explains how they are going about getting rid of it....


"" Small, incremental reductions in the ability of
Americans to own guns would begin the
eventual waterfall of legislation limiting our
ability to own guns completely.""

And lest we forget Obama's true stance on firearms ownership...

"" On Friday, gun rights advocate John Lott told
radio talk show host Laura Ingraham that
Barack Obama once told him that people
should not be able to own guns.
According to Lott, Obama made the
statement the first time the two met.
"He said to me, 'I don't believe people should
be able to own guns,'" he recalled.
Lott said he offered to meet with him over
lunch to discuss the issue.
"But he just wrinkled his face and turned
around and walked away. And that was the
end of our first conversation on that," he
said.
Ingraham asked Lott to verify that Obama
said "people," and not just "criminals."
Lott said Obama was "very clear" in his
statement.
"He said, 'I don't believe people should be
able to own guns,'" he reiterated.
Lott said that he had told the New York
Times about the incident in 2008.
"But they never used it in their story on him
with regard to his time in Chicago," he
added.
"I think that's the way he still feels,"
Ingraham responded, comparing Obama to
committed leftists she knew at Dartmouth.
Ingraham added that she did not find the
news surprising "at all."
Lott also said that the two people Obama put
on the Supreme Court do not believe
individuals have a right to own guns.
Last May, Obama told gun control advocate
Sarah Brady that he was working on gun
control " under the radar ."
“'I just want you to know that we are working
on it,' Brady recalled the president telling
them. 'We have to go through a few
processes, but under the radar,'” the
Washington Post reported.""
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-rights-advocate-obama-said-people-shouldn-t-be-able-to-own-guns

Haven't you ever read sun tzu?

Know thyself, know thy enemy, a thousand battles, a thousand victories.

Constitutional law = know they enemy.

Constantly battling the second amendment from different directions = a thousand battles.

No thousand victories because he doesn't know himself, maybe due to birth certificate issues.

yep, hes smart enough to know americans wont tolerate an all at once ban, thats why slowly they are just going to keep adding restrictions so that eventually noone will be able to own them. ANY american who doesnt think we should be able to own firearms whether it be ar-15's or glocks, needs a history lesson.

how can people still believe anything that comes out of his mouth?

I just wish you folks would argue about this factually, instead of with endless hyperbole and nonsense.

For one thing, the often cited claim that Gun control led to Stalin and Hitler is simply a dead on lie. In fact, the dictatorships came first, and whatever gun control that occurred (the Nazis ended up arming everyone to the teeth) happened AFTER.

Well the original intent of the 2nd Amendment for the right to bear & keep arms was intended for community defense against invasion or an oppressive gov't....Obama IS opressive but not in that sense lol

It's always been open season (pardon the pun) on where the law stands on the rights of individual gun owners...somewhere (probably California) some city tried to enforce a policy that guns in homes had to be kept locked up with another regulation stating that their ownership was permitted for emergency self defense....it was shot down because obviously it takes too long to get a key and unlock a lock box while boy charming is rifling through the wife's jewelry ...

Well the original intent of the 2nd Amendment for the right to bear & keep arms was intended for community defense against invasion or an oppressive gov't....Obama IS opressive but not in that sense lol

It's always been open season (pardon the pun) on where the law stands on the rights of individual gun owners...somewhere (probably California) some city tried to enforce a policy that guns in homes had to be kept locked up with another regulation stating that their ownership was permitted for emergency self defense....it was shot down because obviously it takes too long to get a key and unlock a lock box while boy charming is rifling through the wife's jewelry ...

and you can keep your current provider


I know the joke is getting old but I think we should get as much mileage out of it as we can before he vanishes in 2016

Thank you C7.
It's a sharp point well worth making.

It's a little annoying that so many ostensible 2A defenders turn a blind eye to all the infringements of 2A there are already!

To my knowledge, open carry is not permitted in New York State.
There may be an exception during hunting season.

Concealed carry is virtually prohibited in NYC, a jurisdiction where millions of potential crime victims live.

In the rest of New York State, concealed carry must be applied for; involving government forms, fingerprinting, judicial "permission", etc.

How in the HE11 can we pretend that's not an infringement?!
If applying for a license is a prerequisite, and that license can be denied, then it is an infringement BY DEFINITION!!!

2A is ALREADY infringed !!!
If it's against the law to walk into the local United States Post Office, and mail a letter while carrying my loaded 12 ga. Winchester Pump, then 2A is infringed.

2A is infringed.

Where the heck have you complainers been?

i agree, there has already been too many infringements on it. but as long as we allow them to take, they will keep taking.

BUT !!

TJ added:

We're surely losing the former.

What's so humiliating is the baubles we've accepted in exchange.

As of this post you have 157 posts. If you read back in time you will find many threads on this subject. There is a HUGE amount of discussion, decent, and review of the gun laws.

Please note that you were not there.

There is little about the second amendment that Obama and his liberal allies don't understand. The problem is that they simply don't care and will circumvent the Constitution any way they can to impose the rules they want.

Since WWII the art of propaganda has been constantly tuned and used to great effect. Freedom of speech means less and less if someone can be imagined to be offended.

The second amendment is seen as a threat to all who could be harmed. The actual purpose of the amendment doesn't even enter the picture. With enough PC BS, a case can be made that you are simply a nut for wanting to own a gun for any reason.

The way our Constitution is written, someone must sue the government to get the Supreme Court to look at a law. In the meantime, ... they just do whatever they want, and the Constitution be damned.

heres some more

Senate Bill: ‘Must Retrofit’ Handgun with Smart Gun Tech Before Sale

By Eric Scheiner | June 11, 2015 | 11:04 AM EDT
223
Shares

(CNSNews.com) - Democratic Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have put forth a bill that could drastically impact gun sales in America.

Last week Markey and Warren introduced The “Handgun Trigger Safety Act”. It would mandate that in 10 years “anyone selling a handgun must retrofit it with personalization technology before that sale can be completed.”

It would also ban the “manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun” within 5 years of the measure being enacted.

Smart gun technology allows a handgun to only be operated by an authorized user. It generally works through finger or palm print recognition, electronic password or coded lock, or a gun that needs to be in proximity to a specific watch or bracelet in order to operate.

Currently smart gun technology is pricey. The Armatix iP1 is the first smart handgun to be sold in the U.S. with a reported price of $1,800.

In a press release Markey says, the measure would also “authorize grants to develop and improve ‘personalized’ handgun technology to increase efficacy and decrease costs.”

It would also “provide reimbursement to manufacturers for the costs of retrofitting handguns through the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.”



i dont trust this BS one bit...