Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

TRIGGERING CONCERN

NRA: Obama's Proposals Would Lead to Gun Confiscation

Do you agree?

Next>

by Lisa Fine

Staff Writer t

Image: Youtube

A new ad by the National Rifle Association claims President Barack Obama's proposed gun regulations would lead to "government confiscation of legal firearms owned by honest citizens."

The nation's largest gun rights advocacy group released the web video Tuesday night in response to the president's State of the Union address. Obama's impassioned request to lawmakers to vote on proposals including requiring universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, received a standing ovation.

"President Obama gives a good speech and when you listen him talk about new gun laws, you may think he sounds reasonable," says NRA executive director Chris Cox.

The ad claims a Justice Department memo says that an assault weapons ban would only work in conjunction with a mandatory gun buyback program. It also says the memo points out the effectiveness of universal background checks depends on "requiring gun registration."

"Requiring gun registration with the federal government?" Cox said. "That's an illegal abuse of privacy and freedom." The ad concludes with Cox asking: "Still think President Obama's proposals sound reasonable?"

Via The Hill
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Do you think Obama's proposals will lead to gun confiscation?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • jessejaymes
    !
    How do you know someone who has a gun but shouldn't like the Arizona or Colorado shooters if you don't register guns? I am a gun owner and am not worried about confiscation of my guns. I support background checks, waiting periods and gun registration for all guns.
  • Medicinebow
    !
    @jessejaymes Background checks let you know if someone shouldn't have a weapon. Will the folks with mental health and criminal backgrounds register their guns? I have plenty of firearms..why should I wait to get a gun if I clear a background check instantly? It certainly wouldn't give me any "cooling off" time because there are plenty of options.

  • View all 158 replies >

  • Medicinebow
    !
    I fully support background checks. I am totally against registration because it serves no legitimate purpose. What would the gov't do with this information?
  • Medicinebow
    !
    @Zazziness Sounds "reasonable". Google CoBIS and let me know what you find out. NY did exactly this and the results show how "well" this worked out.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Medicinebow I had a gun stolen by an employee who walked out in one of our business locations. Because the gun was registered I got it back. That's one reason.

  • View all 54 replies >

  • DARSB
    !
    When we finally get around to tightening the mental health databases I'm going to be interested in seeing if some of these ultra-paranoid gun owners aren't in there.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    Actually DARSB is correct. We need to get the guns out of the hands of the lunatics. That's a considerable number of guns.
  • No_Bama
    !
    Ah yes, the old "You're crazy and "ultra-paranoid" for thinking that Obama is trying to take away your guns, just because he's trying to take away your guns" backwards liberal logic. Gotta love those ad hominem attacks.

    "Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident."

    - Unknown

  • View all 21 replies >

  • o
    thatgirl
    !
    @Medicinebow Um....I was referring to the type that says things like "I"ll shoot anyone that tries to take my guns". I'm sure you know the type I am speaking of.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Medicinebow I would agree that at this point my education is severely dated. But I do have a double masters from UCLA. I consider myself a political junkie who goes right on some issues and left on others. I do not consider myself "low information" since I spend of my days on political sites. And I support gun registration. My four guns are already registered and have been for years. I've yet to hear from Law enforcement except the one time they returned a stolen gun.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    Gun registration assumes that the government will not take it further and initiate confiscation from those whom are deemed to be a threat. IOW do you trust ths administration not to confiscatet? Or a better question would do you trust and unknown administration at a time in the future? My guns aren't registered and I intend to keep it that way.

  • View all 65 replies >

  • u
    AceLuby
    !
    LOL! Just another ploy by the NRA to try to increase their funding from their main donors... gun manufacturers. Scare people into buying more guns, gun manufacturers make more profit, NRA gets more funding, NRA goes on TV to scare more people into buying more guns... and the cycle continues while the lemmings have their money sucked from their pockets.
  • DogLady_1
    !
    If anything, we should make people who own assault rifles declare their affiliation with a well-regulated militia, which is the only reason to own them. Seems we forget that the amendment that mentions "the right to bear arms" qualifies that right by first mentioning "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"... they are not for hunting or for sport. They are for the militias in case our gov't becomes too despotic and tyrannical to be corrected through the election process...
  • DogLady_1
    !
    @AceLuby - Not according to the Federalist Papers which explained each of the items in the Constitution. It is clear that the militia is designed to keep our government on the straight and narrow... armies are for foreign invaders... Militias are state-run armies to defend against the tyranny of the federal gov't (and to assist our national army if invaded). These days, we call the biggest group of state militias the "National Guard"...

    "In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition." FP #29

    "...the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government..." FP #26

    "But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State governments would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other." FP #46
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    I have a theory on this I will throw out there. The punctuation used in the amendment would suggest the founders are using what is called the listing comma. So if we were to remove the commas and create a list here is what we have:

    1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
    2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms
    3. shall not be infringed.

    They way the commas are used are consistent with the rules of the listing comma.
    http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/departmen...

  • View all 13 replies >

  • u
    AnnieO
    !
    I fail to see where it's the business of the government to know everything I own. My handguns are all registered but all of my rifles are not. Some were gifts from family members and I will pass them on to my son. Why is that anyone's business but mine? I do not worry about confiscation. I live in KY. I support stronger background checks and more mental health information being provided for these checks. Criminals don't register guns anyway and many times, they are using stolen guns so how will the national database help anything?
  • u
    thumper11
    !
    We already have stronger background checks - since 1994. Current law requires every buyer of every gun from all licensed dealers in all states, including all guns-shows, be subject to a federal background check (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536). There are NO exceptions. Furthermore all individuals engaged in the business of firearms MUST obtain a federal license (27 CFR 478-41). There are NO exceptions.

    The false claim that “40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted through private sales at gun shows and are not subject to a criminal background check” has long been debunked as an insidious fabrication (“The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks” by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, January 21, 2013). This myth is promoted as a false pretext for subjugating American citizens.

    What they are now trying to do, is to subject all private citizens to federal administrative jurisdiction - essentially converting all Americans from "citizens" into "subjects". Don't be fooled by their lies.
  • u
    AnnieO
    !
    @thumper11 We go to gun shows all the time and have made several gun purchases at them. We have always had background checks done, every time. I just don't see why people want the government involved in every private aspect of their lives. I certainly don't!
  • PNWest
    !
    Treat guns like cars. No special exemptions from product liability claims for gun & bullet manufacturers. Mandatory registration of guns - like vehicles. Mandatory liability insurance in case YOUR gun causes damages to somebody - just like the liability insurance you have to have on every car you own. There is no reason that gun and bullet manufacturers should received special treatment under product liability laws.
  • Knightkore
    !
    @PNWest Solves the government registration problem too....if an Allstate company is keeping the registrations then no need for the government to handle UNLESS they need it for an investigation....warrants and all....
  • Medicinebow
    !
    Liability insurance is a good idea. I'm just against the gov't making it mandatory. But we're already seeing that. Gun manufacturers can still be sued for a defective product, just not misuse by an individual. Should we have mandatory insurance for other activities?
  • PNWest
    !
    @Medicinebow We already do for cars, boats, planes, dangerous businesses and probably other stuff I can't think of right now. If you are doing something inherently dangerous that may harm your fellow citizens society has the right to make sure that you pay for any damage you cause.

  • View all 46 replies >

  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    Perhaps I am missing something here but exactly how do they plan to get the criminal to participate in all of these new restrictions, registrations, background checks, etc? It's a widely known fact that some people follow laws and others do not. Reminds me of our other attempt to deal with the meth problem by putting SudaFed and like products behind the counter, requiring an ID and the purchase are recorded and submitted to the government (I guess that's where it goes anyway). The effect of these new control means that I stand in Walgreen's and giving up all my info in order to get something for my allergies. The effect on the meth problem itself......zero, the effect on quieting those screaming that was must do something.......100% successful. For the politicians quiet citizens are a beautiful thing.
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    Perhaps I should have also mentioned that so many of our jobs we have sent to other countries many of our meth cooks setup shop in Mexico where it can be made better, faster and cheaper than in the US. Now let's all go pat ourselves on the back for taking action on this paramount problem.
  • Food4thoughts
    !
    @Buzzfriendly
    So you can't say with certainty that precursor laws had "zero" effect on meth usage. But you could say the effect, whatever it is, is not worth the inconvenience of waiting in line and showing your ID, iyo

  • View all 22 replies >

  • No_Bama
    !
    "As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States."

    Just think folks - if the Obama's gun-grabbing agenda goes through, he will essentially be making 2.5-3.7 million law-abiding gun owners criminals. It'll be a double win for the gun-grabbing left's agenda, because after these law-abiding American citizens get caught with the outlawed weapons, which they will no doubt refuse to give up, they will become felons and will no longer be allowed to guns at all. It's a the Government's and a gun-grabber's wet dream. So how about trying to tell us all again how Obama isn't trying to take our guns or our Constitutional rights?
  • Politic-n
    !
    There are an estimated 60-70 million so-called "assault weapons" in the US now, with an estimated 25-35 million people owning them. The AR-15 style rifle is just one of over 150 weapons now called "assault weapons". The logistics and political fury that would result in the banning, or registering/restricting, them at the national level would be huge!
  • No_Bama
    !
    This is nothing short of the left's attempt at criminalizing Conservative gun owners. Take our guns and make us felons so we can no longer vote.
  • WVMountYouNear
    !
    I know for a fact, from someone in very deep, that there is going to be a major push to "convince" the American people to give up their firearms. It has been planned for a very long time. MOST of what you hear in the media about tragedy's are government fabricated. There will ultimately be domestic embargo's against the American public embargo's (withholding the ability to buy food or meds) until they turn in their guns, in which case, then they can have all they want.~ There is MUCH to the secret plan that has just been launched. This is only the tip of an iceburg. America has already fallen to the poWers that be. Now they will corral us quickly to where they want us to be. We have been lulled by comfort in life for too long. We have fallen to luxury.
  • u
    Chromalord
    !
    wow! the fact that half who voted that it WOULD lead to gun confiscation, all I have to say is, sorry you believed the bad bill of goods someone sold you. That has never been the proposal from Obama, no way, no how.
  • u
    Chromalord
    !
    @thumper11 I will make a deal with you. Prove to me that the government, now or in the future, has confiscated your guns, and I will pay your loss.
  • u
    thumper11
    !
    @Chromalord,
    Here’s part of the current Democratic proposal in Missouri (for "future confiscation):

    4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

    (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

    (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

    (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

    5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

  • View all 11 replies >

  • u
    S-N-A-F-U
    !
    Aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states...Registration leads to Confiscation...

    let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

    Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

    1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

    The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

    How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

    What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation.(Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

    Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened....

    If you think this president hasn't ambitions to do the same, may I suggest you leave that cave and roost that your pearched on...
  • u
    S-N-A-F-U
    !
    This administration knows that gun bans have little effect, as indicated here......

    "Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and Malcolm reports that getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a “good reason” for needing a gun. Self defense is not considered to be a good reason in England. Following a 1987 shooting in the British town of Hungerford, the Brits enacted stricter controls. And in 1998, a near-total ban on gun ownership followed another mass shooting. Were these moves a success?

    Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.

    There is little doubt that the Senate will soon put forth new legislation regarding gun ownership, especially as it relates to so-called assault weapons. However, those making the argument that banning guns has worked in places like Australia and England might be advised to check the statistics or risk looking foolish if they encounter someone armed with the facts."

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/28/wi...
  • Politic-n
    !
    Good post. But gun grabbers don't care about facts or saving lives or any of that. They simply want people disarmed, and they're trying to do it one law at a time, chipping away at the Bill of RIGHTS.
  • R Load more comments...