Blah-Blah-Blah: President Obama Continues Assault On NRA (National Rifle Association)

MINNESOTA – President Obama on Monday tried to undercut National Rifle Association leaders and appeal directly to their membership, claiming gun owners support the “common-sense” gun control measures he’s proposed — and urging those supporters to “keep the pressure” on Congress.

The president spoke in Minnesota, in his first campaign-style stop as part of a second-term push for new firearms laws.

obama-yapping-blah-blah-blah-speech-sad-hill-news2

On the other side of that debate, the NRA has aggressively argued against Democrats’ call for a new and stronger assault-weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity magazines and universal background checks. But in a risky move, the president used his speech Monday to try and sideline America’s most powerful gun lobby.

“The overwhelming majority of gun owners think (universal background checks are) a good idea,” Obama said, referring to recent polling that shows most gun owners support background checks at gun shows and for private sales. “So if we’ve got lobbyists in Washington claiming to speak for gun owners saying something different, we need to go to the source and reach out to people directly.

Obama Confused“We can’t allow those filters to get in the way of common sense,” Obama said.

He urged the public to call Congress and voice support for the proposals.

The NRA is unlikely to be drowned out. The group has vocally come out against universal background checks, saying that while they’ve supported such a system in the past, the overall process is too flawed. The group claims a universal background check system will put gun buyers through needless hassle, with little in the way of results.  (continue reading)

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Harry Reid, media bias, Potus Gun Ban, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Blah-Blah-Blah: President Obama Continues Assault On NRA (National Rifle Association)

  1. gds44 says:

    Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog and commented:
    Since Obozo does not know the definition of “common sense” I rest my case!

    Like

  2. Sharon says:

    claiming gun owners support the “common-sense” gun control measures he’s proposed

    …………and…………………………..he lies.

    I can’t wait until he lines up 20 or 30 “proud gun-owners” totin’ their guns (like the doctors in the pretty white lab coats)…………he’ll hand them their prop guns as they walk into the Rose Garden.

    Now that’ll be a photo shop opportunity.

    Like

  3. Joseph Keesling says:

    No we don’t… Everything he says is a lie!

    Sent from my iPhone

    Like

  4. elvischupacabra says:

    The scary phrase here is, “common sense”. As The Left tries to undermine conservative positions, they interject seemingly innocuous words and phrases like, common sense, fair share, for the richest Americans, etc. That way, they change a lie into something perceived as the truth by associating concepts like “gun control” with “common sense”. That’s how they “re-frame the debate”. The Soviets used it by taking the Russian color associated with peace, prosperity and happiness – red – and associating it with Communism. Yes, “Red Square” predates the Communists.

    Words do matter. And yes, the pen is mightier than the sword, especially when backed up by the sword. Hence, the Second Amendment.

    Like

    • michellc says:

      I get so sick of hearing him say common sense about everything he’s babbling about. He wouldn’t recognize common sense if it jumped up and hit him upside the head.

      Like

  5. justfactsplz says:

    We NRA members along with all law abiding gun owners need to stay united in our support for the NRA. I do not believe their polls or anything else they have to say. Anyone who uses children as political pawns is the lowest form of life. Now there is a Sandy Hook uniformed choir and children doing ads for gun control.

    Like

  6. Not that it’s going to do me any good down here, but I’m curious. What’s the difference between a Universal Background Check and the current Background Check? And don’t all firearms purchased at a store require a Background Check?

    I asked Capone at dinner, but all he said was “Background checks? Vaffanculo!” :evil:

    Like

    • michellc says:

      Universal background checks would mean if your neighbor has an old shotgun you’ve been trying to talk him into selling you for awhile, you wouldn’t be able to buy unless you went through a dealer or some other method they came up with to fill out the paperwork and have a background check deeming you not a felon or a crazy person.
      Or if you want to leave your grandson the old 410 that you took him hunting with the first time, he would have to go through that process in order to legally take possession of it.

      One argument liberals have made many times is that a large percentage of guns were purchased before the 90’s law signed by Clinton, so in their view that’s too many guns that they have no way of knowing if the person owning them is fit to own them.

      I honestly don’t understand why the conversation is even taking place, out of the 10 mass shootings that took place between 2009-2012, 8 bought their guns through a dealer passing a background check. 1 unknown and 1 had been ordered by a court to not be in possession of firearms in California where private sales must go through the system. So if mass murders aren’t being committed by people who bought guns privately and it’s supposed to be about preventing such mass shootings, what does private sales have to do with it?

      Like

  7. Coast says:

    With all of the problems we face as a nation, talking about “gun control” as a national priority is total total total nonsense. Why anyone would go out of their way to listen to this clown is beyond logic.

    Like

  8. waltherppk says:

    Mark Levin is on a rant about how the 1.7 million “unqualified purchasers” who were flagged by the existing background check syatem were 97% FALSE POSITIVES because of similar names for purchasers who were later cleared for purchases when the mistaken identity issue was resolved. The bottom line is people are being LIED TO and the damn liars who are doing the lying do absolutely know it that they are lying. There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. We see all three kinds of lies fully represented by subversives who are attacking the second amendment.

    Like

    • michellc says:

      I had a guy tell me that happened to him, I didn’t know if it was true or not, but he said he bought a gun back in August at BassPro then in December at a gun show he tried to buy a gun and they flagged him. He was going through the process(not real sure what that is) to get it straightened out. It was the first I had ever heard of it, so I didn’t think much about it.

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Out of all the bona fide unqualified purchasers less than two dozen total were successfully prosecuted for illegally attempting to purchase a weapon. And of all the ones who were not cleared and were referred for prosecution more than one in five of those charges were false and were still cases of mistaken identity…..so even the existing background check is a farce run by people who can’t keep their facts or numbers straight aside from otherwise being generally clueless.

        Like

        • michellc says:

          I think it’s rational to ask the question, why do they want a universal background check so bad? We know they want a national registry, so is it that far of a jump to think just maybe they have their own registry now and a universal background check is just a back door way to add to that registry?
          They’ve harped on the gun show loophole for years, yet something like 1.9% of gun crimes were committed with guns sold at a gun show and many of them were sold through a gun dealer.

          We can’t keep conceding more and more to them because they tout we’re unreasonable or it’s common sense.
          Yeah, I don’t want to be reasonable anymore. They got their background checks and weren’t satisfied. They have proven their background checks really don’t work especially where mass murder is concerned.
          The numbers you’re giving are new to me, but it shows that they are infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens of bearing arms.

          Like

    • Here’s a thought. (Tell me if I’m thinking too much)

      If the BATF says “all gun retailers who go out of business have to turn over all their records,” …then what’s to stop the Administration from closing down gun stores and dealers and getting an instant “Gun Locator” handed to them on a silver platter?

      I probably shouldn’t have given enforcement of firearms laws to the Alcohol Tax Unit in ’42 because it was part of the Internal Revenue Bureau back then. A leftover from Prohibition.

      This regime could give the IRS control over both Healthcare and you-know-what. :evil:

      Like

  9. triage says:

    Some progressive co-workers have asked me how I can be against “common sense gun control” and I just want to scream. They are parroting Obama and assume they have cornered the market in common sense and we are all loons. Most of these people don’t own guns and hate guns but somehow now, come to find out, they are experts in effective gun control measures. These are non thinking robots who can’t be reached. Obama is effective with this group as they want to be lead. It has nothing to do with intelligence as some are physicians and you would think they would have better critical thinking skills. I have found that they will only accept an fact that is emotionally pleasing to them. Fact are rejected if they make them uncomfortable. I keep telling them that “the truth doesn’t always come dressed for dinner” but they want to feel good so they just give me a pained look and repeat another Obama talking point. I fight on.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Common sense. You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      – Inigo Montoya (paraphrased)

      How is limiting magazine capacity “common sense”?
      How is banning a gun based purely on cosmetic features “common sense”?
      How is expanding a failed program (background checks) “common sense”?

      Here’s some common sense: if you want to reduce gun-related murders, deal with gang- and drug-related violence, and deal with suicide. The vast majority of gun deaths come from these alone.

      Like

  10. Thanks for the clarification, Michelle.
    It sounds to me like Background Checks are just another name for backdoor Gun Registration.
    If the gun retailer lists the make and model of the firearm that the customer being Checked is buying, then it’s FRONT DOOR Gun Registration. Pure and simple. :roll:

    Just like today’s Federal Registration of gold purchases. They know the address and the drones will find the gold…just like my cousin Teddy Roosevelt’s ratter Terrier, Pete. :evil:

    Like

    • michellc says:

      Exactly. I was always one of those that said they can’t keep the paperwork it has to be destroyed by law. Then I found out that gun dealers have to account for every gun that comes in and leaves their store. So what does it matter if the paperwork you fill out for the background check is destroyed?

      Like

  11. Reblogged this on Thepoliticalchef's Blog and commented:
    Lol to the dude behind POTUS…how many times have I felt that same way about DC talking heads? Um that would be ALL the time…TPC

    Like

  12. I feel the same way the dude behind the POTUS feels constantly when talking heads from DC start blathering on…they sound a lot like Charlie Browns teacher, wah, wah, wah wah wah…

    Like

  13. Cesar BBiano says:

    common sense…another term that will forever be ruined for us.
    The word f…fo….fffffffffffffff….fff…forward [shudders] has already been tainted.

    Like

  14. TFred says:

    The elephant in the room that nobody talks about.

    The paperwork you must fill out in order to purchase a gun from a dealer REQUIRES you to report the make, model and serial number of every gun you are buying. If the Federal Government were obeying the law that requires them to not keep a gun registry, then why do they require that the ID of the gun be reported? The details about the GUN are not required to determine whether or not a person is able to buy one. What is their justification for requiring this information to be reported?

    They think we are stupid, and that is because we are, to have let them get away with this for so long.

    Like

    • Light Bulb Johnson’s GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 virtually put a knife through the heart of 2A.
      Today, he laughs about how he railroaded it into law “inside the coffins of JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X.”
      America is now living in LBJ’s Great Society. He put my four Terms on steroids and the carpetbagger at 1600 has launched it all to the Moon.
      God Help America. :-(

      Like

  15. hoonan says:

    Minnesota is a weird place for him to start…bunch Dems that love their guns up here…

    Like

  16. It’s absolutely imperative that Obama’s proposals are prevented from becoming law. Aside from the constitutional issue — shall not be infringed reads pretty clearly to me — the proposals themselves are dangerous.

    The example of the universal background check is one. Anybody can be denied and most of the time for bogus reasons. A friend of ours is a retired Army sargeant who carried a gun every day for his job for 24 years. He was turned down to buy a new rifle. He couldn’t figure out why. He asked for my help researching it (ex-journalists are good at that sort of thing). I tracked down that he had been arrested, but not charged, tried or convicted, of a breaking and entry thing when he was 19 years old — he broke a window on what he thought was his apartment after he locked himself out (he was a little drunk at the time). The landlord decided not to press charges after my friend paid to replace the window. My friend never even went to the police station, the investigating officer was another neighbor who simply called it in before talking to the landlord. The federal firearms background check said he’d been CONVICTED of FELONY burglary. The specifics tied to the record were correct, except for the conviction. The thing is, he was a warrant officer with a pretty high security clearance, so he’d passed at least a half dozen more intensive background checks and never been asked about his dangerous criminal past.

    My husband’s brother-in-law cannot pass a federal background check for a dealer gun because my husband’s mother, who is mentally ill, accused him of hurting her and a judge issued a temporary restraining order. Upon hearing the facts of the case, the same judge refused to issue a long-term RO, but it doesn’t matter. He was accused so, although he legally can own guns, he can’t buy one through a dealer. I’m guessing that if Obama gets his way on private sales and gun shows, my brother-in-law will simply be unable to purchase guns — even though he has no criminal record and the domestic violence charge was actually just an attempt by my MIL to get into public housing.

    Although I have strong feelings about paranoid schizophrenics, these “mental health screenings” have the potential to suspend the 2nd amendment for most of the people in the United States. Ever go talk to a counselor after a tragedy? No guns for you.

    Like

  17. Pingback: Let Me Just Say Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Marxism! | Daily Pundit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s