Why does Barrack Obama want only the criminals to be armed with weapons?

Question

Why is it that Obama only wants criminals to be armed with firearms?

It is well-known that the current democratic party is highly anti-gun. They want to enforce new bans on weapons, limiting thousands of standard hunting guns from experienced hunters and target shooters across the nation. Also, Obama wants to get rid of ALL concealed carry permit laws, which a total of 48 states have recently acquired to protect their own citizens. These are the laws which would allow you to protect your own family or loved ones in a time of crisis.

Now take this as a note...Chicago has banned pistols everywhere in its city since 1982. Law-abiding citizens therefore cannot possess a pistol to defend themselves in Chicago, like if someone were to break into their home. But as you will know, criminals and gang members continue to defend themselves with pistols on a daily basis in Chicago. Obviously, gun regulation has no effect on people who do not obey the law.

So I have to ask again, why is it that Barrack Obama wants only the criminals to be the ones with weapons?

Answer 1

Obama is a Marxist.  His voting record is the most left-wing in the entire Senate.  Just like any other good commie, he doesn't believe in the individuals right to bear arms.  In his mind, the government should be in control, not the people.

Leaders like obama have existed for thousands of years, and it's his type that the 2nd amendment protects us from.  

I know that liberals will never get it no matter what crime or history stats you show them.  Liberals don't use logic, they emote.  They are easily sold on concepts that FEEL good but have no merit in the real world.  Hence, their empty suit marxist candidate.

Answer 2

to make things easier for the domestic "security force" he wants to implement under touchy-feely talk of community service

it's more tempting to rat on your neighbors and filch their property if you have a gun and a badge and they don't

many times huge crowds of unarmed are bullied into submission by a couple of stooges with guns (even when the guns have no bullets---such has been the case before---it is psychological)

it also makes Americans defenseless in the event of a fifth column event

these may amount to pretty much the same thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitate

Answer 3

Because the majority of American have become sheeple. If you take away the rights of the people to defend themselves they will become dependent upon the government. The more people become dependent upon the government, the more powerful the democrats become.

Answer 4

There are anywhere from 1 to 2.5 MILLION crimes deterred each year by people with firearms.  A massacre was prevented in Denver earlier this year when a brave young lady (with a concealed carry permit) used her firearm to stop a madman from a homocidial rampage.  

Everyday there are stories like the one below.   Guns Save Lives.      

Answer 5

How about a little food for thought?

-In the world, we are one of the few nations to enforce almost no gun control

-We have the largest death by gun rate of any nation in the world, most of them accidental shootings (not robberies, not crimes)

-Obama's only responses have been to try and remove assault rifles and other so-called "standard hunting guns" from the hands of your every day citizen, and the removal of the concealed carry permit laws is to prevent people from keeping concealed weaponry on hand.  There's no link between concealing weapons and better family safety

-The "times of crisis" you are talking about are when a criminal enters your house or holds you up for money in the alley way.  If you happen to be carrying a gun in these instances, not only does this make the criminal more shaky (and therefore more likely to shoot you or someone else), but the fact that you have the gun makes it more likely that you would shoot someone.  It exacerbates the situation.

-All of this really means nothing anyway.  Obama has never once stated that he wants to get rid of all guns in this country.  A weapon limitation is not the same as a weapon ban.  If criminals can get dangerous assault rifles through a nearby gun store, that makes it a h**l of a lot easier to commit a crime using one.  He's saying at least take these most dangerous weapons out of arm's reach, so that the only criminals who could get it would have to pay a lot more and go a lot further to obtain them.  

If you want to protect your family, feel free to.  You don't need the most advanced gun to do it.

Answer 6

We should follow the English, just look at them, guns are banned, even their police are disarmed, a real Utopia. Boy aren't they a civilized tribe (just like Chief Lone Wattie from Josie Wales) we are just mere savages in need of "civilization".

Answer 7

He takes offense when people cling to their guns.

Answer 8

Don't worry, son, no one is going to take your guns away. If a ban was placed on a certain type of gun or all guns it would be near impossible to raid every house and steal them all.

Be realistic.  

Answer 9

Oh, the answer is simple. Obama doesn't care about civil rights. That's right, I said it. That ain't saying much. Bush doesn't. McCain doesn't. Basically, the 2nd Amendment is a civil right. Obama doesn't care. He also isn't for civil rights concerning property. I've told people before, the Bill of Rights isn't a buffet. You can't pick and choose.

Oh well.

Oh, and WhiteFlame. Everything you said is wrong. Russia, South Africa, and Brazil are countries I know have higher rates of murder than the U.S. Whether it's all firearm related or not doesn't matter.

Um, what other countries do concerning gun policy doesn't matter either. What if Japan enforces gun control stringently? They don't have due process or trial by jury there either (nor does most of Europe). So s***w 'em. You can't look at what others do as a panacea to what we should do.

Um, there is a link to CCW being better. Read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. No, CCW isn't perfect, but it's better than having a cell phone and a prayer.

As for assault weapons, can you even define what an assault weapon is? I'm certain Obama cannot. Why? Because it's a madeup term used to describe weapons that look really dangerous, when in reality, not so dangerous.

And Obama has stated (when in Illinois) that he supported total handgun bans, and bans on all semi-automatic weapons period. Sorry, it's on the record. You can say that I and others don't "need" those weapons. But that would be simply denying the truth to support your opinion which is that guns are bad, and we should adopt an English, Japanese, (insert liberal Western Euro nation here) policy in the US.

s***w that. We are America. Millions of us own guns. And we will never give them up. Obama has a chance to win, and hold power for the Dems for a while. The last thing in the world he should do is go after guns and gun owners.

But though he seems to be bright concerning diplomacy and foreign policy. And he also is pretty charasmatic, and understands the frustration of this country because of Republican blunders, his elitism concerning rural inhabitants of the nation and of the South, and Rocky Mountain States could lead to problems. And gun are one of the best ways he can start to create Democratic blunders.

Answer 10

he doesn't

why do republicans need ak47s to go duck hunting?

Answer 11

It's all about control.  Dishonest politicians try to increase government control as much as possible.  Of course, in order to get the public to swallow that, they sugar coat the idea, saying that it will make us safer.  Unfortunately, for them, this "experiment" has already been tried without ANY effect on crime rates.  Look to England as an example.

The 2nd Amendment exists to have the balance of power reside overwhelmingly on the side of the people and not the government.  If you remove the ability for the people to defend themselves and their rights, then the balance overwhelmingly resides on the side of the government.  The relationship between the people and the government becomes solely based on trust, where the people are at the direct mercy of the government.  

This idea is not what America was founded upon.  Gun control, in effect, is un-American, and when implemented on a large scale, will ultimately destroy this country.  Perhaps not directly but it will invite the opportunity for tyrannical rule, a rule that would otherwise be prevented by people having the ultimate say in what goes on in this country.  

Wake up people!  Guns allow you to be independent.  Don't get scared away by that.  Others take advantage of that fear.  None of your freedoms can be taken away unless you give them up first.

Answer 12

How about a little food for thought?

-In the world, we are one of the few nations to enforce almost no gun control

-We have the largest death by gun rate of any nation in the world, most of them accidental shootings (not robberies, not crimes)

Cite some sources.  Or don't, because there aren't any legit sources for this patently false info.  You are clearly obfuscating the so-called "youth deaths by gun" with "accidental deaths by gun," which is exactly what anti-gun agit-prop wants you to do.  Oh, those youth deaths by gun?  Those are gang members, 18 and under, or 21 and under in some jurisdictions.  Are you really implying that our gang problem is because of a lack of gun control?  News flash: felons can't get guns in gun stores ANYWAY.

-Obama's only responses have been to try and remove assault rifles and other so-called "standard hunting guns" from the hands of your every day citizen, and the removal of the concealed carry permit laws is to prevent people from keeping concealed weaponry on hand.

GREAT thinking!  Who would DARE conceal a weapon without a permit?  Certainly no one that pays attention to the law in the first place...

There's no link between concealing weapons and better family safety

-The "times of crisis" you are talking about are when a criminal enters your house or holds you up for money in the alley way. If you happen to be carrying a gun in these instances, not only does this make the criminal more shaky (and therefore more likely to shoot you or someone else), but the fact that you have the gun makes it more likely that you would shoot someone. It exacerbates the situation.

Exactly.  Not only that, but the poor ole criminal probably had a hard time growing up and his frustrations with "the system" are perfectly legitimate.  You must simply submit to violent people; it's for the great good.  Thanks for that newsflash.

-All of this really means nothing anyway. Obama has never once stated that he wants to get rid of all guns in this country. A weapon limitation is not the same as a weapon ban. If criminals can get dangerous assault rifles through a nearby gun store, that makes it a h**l of a lot easier to commit a crime using one. He's saying at least take these most dangerous weapons out of arm's reach, so that the only criminals who could get it would have to pay a lot more and go a lot further to obtain them.

See my earlier rebuttal.

-If you want to protect your family, feel free to. You don't need the most advanced gun to do it.

So you think only The State, or is it Our Great Leaders, need access to the most advanced weaponry.  That makes perfect sense... because we exist only to serve them.  Politicians and military leaders are so much more important than Average Joes like ourselves, so we should be humble and let them hoard all the good guns...we don't DESERVE the best protection, right?

Answer 13

Well, as the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, he apparently gets some perverse pleasure from trampling on people's freedoms and the bill of rights.

As to the argument 'but it will make people safer!"

You know what else will make people safer?

1.  No requirment to get a search warrant, police can search anything they deem suspicious or untoward

2.  At trials, it will no longer be necessary for all jurors to believe 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  For starters, only 7 of the 12 jurors need to agree.  Second, the new standard will be 'pretty sure he probably did it'

3.  If you don't get the results you want, you can try the case again.

4.  No more pesky lawyers for the accused at least not during police interrogation.  Once you are in the court of law, sure, bring your lawyer, but when you are in police custody getting grilled about the details you are on your own.