Obama's response to a gun store owner's statement about the Second Amendment

[Dittohead not!]

"First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true," Obama said. "And I don’t care how many times the NRA says it."
Obama then claimed there have actually been more guns sold since he has been president than any time in US history. And it's true: Gun sales — based on the number of FBI criminal-background checks — increased by 65% over the period between 2008 and 2013, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Obama continued:
I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U.S. citizens, and we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.
This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer. And if he wants to walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now and buy as much — as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing’s prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is.
"So, sir, I just have to say, respectfully, that there is a way for us to have common sense gun laws," Obama said. "... but the only way we’re going to do that is if we don’t have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment."

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

 

[Crovax]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

Maybe someone should explain to the "constitutional scholar" that it's not the NRA stopping him from withholding constitutional rights without due process but the constitution itself.

Pretty retarded statement from someone everyone thinks is so smart.

 

[joG]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

""First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true," Obama said. "

I liked this sentence. If he doesn't want to take guns away, why is he talking about it continuously. I do dislike a blatant lie.

 

[Captain Adverse]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

The answer is that just because someone is a "known sympathizer" does not mean that they have done anything to merit the loss of their right to keep and bear arms.

Has this "known sympathizer" been convicted of a violent felony yet? Apparently not.

Has this "known sympathizer" violated anyone else's rights through the improper use of a firearm yet? Apparently not.

Is the fact that someone is a "known sympathizer" of an organization that opposes the U.S. Government sufficient cause to deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms? ABSOLUTELY NOT; no more than it was the when King George tried to disarm colonial rebels which led to the "shot heard round the world" on April 19, 1775 when about 700 British soldiers were given secret orders to destroy colonial military supplies in Concord, Massachusetts.

As for Obama's claim "there have actually been more guns sold since he has been president than any time in US history?" The truth behind that statement is not based on his support for the right to keep and bear arms but rather the fear that he is/was supporting laws to prevent such ownership. Gun sales typically jump whenever government seems like it is acting contrary to the Second Amendment.

If he were a real supporter of the right to keep and bear arms he would know not to ask the question "Why can't I disarm a known sympathizer of [insert opposing ideology here]?"

 

[Dittohead not!]

Maybe someone should explain to the "constitutional scholar" that it's not the NRA stopping him from withholding constitutional rights without due process but the constitution itself.

Pretty retarded statement from someone everyone thinks is so smart.

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

 

[washunut]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

Really interesting question from someone self labeling as a Libertarian. If the government "knows" someone is ISIL they should arrest him/her. If they can't prove it in a court of law, then I guess they really don't "know".

 

[Dittohead not!]

Really interesting question from someone self labeling as a Libertarian. If the government "knows" someone is ISIL they should arrest him/her. If they can't prove it in a court of law, then I guess they really don't "know".

I don't know if they can prove it in a court of law. They should try at least. Now, should he be on a no fly list?

 

[MaggieD]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

I love his comment, paraphrased, "Because of the NRA, I can't keep these people from buying guns."

No, Mr. President, that would be, "Because of the Constitution of the United States..."

 

[mak2]

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

 

[VanceMack]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

We've discussed this in pretty much depth before. the reason is because there is no restriction for placement on the terrorist watch list, because all you have to do is be a recipient of a group email forwarded from ANOTHER group email to be placed on the terrorist watch list, and because the government has zero responsibility for who they put on the terrorist watchlist. Seriously...they have had 3 year olds on the no fly list because of their ridiculously ****ed up system...and do you REALLY believe that should be a basis for denial of Constitutional rights?

 

[washunut]

I don't know if they can prove it in a court of law. They should try at least. Now, should he be on a no fly list?

No. Again Americans have rights. The government can allege any of us are on some list. Not interested in giving up rights in the name of fighting terrorism. BTW- I am not a gun.

 

[VanceMack]

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

"It is critical that the TSC further improve the quality of its watch list data because of the consequences of inaccurate or missing information," said Inspector General Glenn Fine. "Inaccurate, incomplete, and obsolete watch list information can increase the risk of not identifying known or suspected terrorists, and it can also increase the risk that innocent persons will be stopped or detained." The Terrorist Screening Center was established in 2003 to bring order to the flurry of separate agency watch lists that quickly developed after 9/11. The FBI is the prime administrator of the center.
The report said the center was properly conducting reviews of complaints filed by people seeking redress from negative experiences they believed were the result of the watch list screening. The report said the reviews identified records for people whose names should not have been on the watch list, and some watch list records were found to be inaccurate or incomplete. As of April 2007, the terrorist watch list, which consolidated more than a dozen federal agency terror lists, contained 700,000 records, and the database continues to increase by an average of more than 20,000 records each month, the report states. "Given this growth and the TSC's weak quality assurance process, we believe the TSC is underestimating the time required to sufficiently review all watch list records for accuracy," the report said."

Thats a review of the TWL by the Justice Department. Its obscene how readily and easily people are placed on the list. There is ZERO by way of due process.

It would be one thing if we were talking about actual known ISIS sympathizers. Thats not what we are talking about. If it were, maybe the FBI, JD, and this administration would have a HELL of a lot morte explaining to do as to why there are now over a million 'known ISIS supporters" operating in the US at all.

"The inspector general's investigators examined 105 watch list records subject to "routine" review, and found that 38 percent of the records contained errors or inconsistencies. The report also found that the number of duplicate records in the database has "significantly increased since our last review."

 

[VanceMack]

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

Is that who is on the Terrorist Watch List? KNOWN wannabe terrorists?

 

[ocean515]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

LOL.

So the President blames the NRA for possibly allowing an ISIL member to buy a gun. Does the President assume all people are as stupid as the ones he surrounds himself with?

As you pointed out, why not just arrest the A-hole?

As the President and other like minded anti-constitutionalists threaten to take away citizens rights, they shouldn't be surprised when citizens respond.

 

[mak2]

The way I understand it, the "known" is weak, more like kinda suspected.

Is that who is on the Terrorist Watch List? KNOWN wannabe terrorists?

 

[VanceMack]

LOL.

So the President blames the NRA for possibly allowing an ISIL member to buy a gun. Does the President assume all people are as stupid as the ones he surrounds himself with?

As you pointed out, why not just arrest the A-hole?

As the President and other like minded anti-constitutionalists threaten to take away citizens rights, they shouldn't be surprised when citizens respond.

What is truly repugnant is how readily so many on the left eagerly swallow what they are fed.

 

[VanceMack]

The way I understand it, the "known" is weak, more like kinda suspected.

Thats rather dramatically different, isnt it? Which of your constitutional rights would you willingly have seized because someone kinda maybe thought you might sort of have some kind of link to something illegal or inappropriate?

 

[mak2]

Uh, None, I also think they should not be put on a no fly list. I don't think any American should ever lose a single right with conviction in court or at least a court order of some sort.

Thats rather dramatically different, isnt it? Which of your constitutional rights would you willingly have seized because someone kinda maybe thought you might sort of have some kind of link to something illegal or inappropriate?

 

[VanceMack]

“I don’t want to be on the list. I want to fly and see my grandma,” the 4-year-old boy said, according to his mother. Sijollie Allen and her son had trouble boarding planes last month because someone with the same name as Edward is on a government terrorist watch list. “Is this a joke?” Allen recalled telling Continental Airlines agents Dec. 21 at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport. “You can tell he’s not a terrorist.”

Cuz...well...hes FOUR.


"A seven-month-old baby is among 15 American Muslims named in two lawsuits being brought against the US government by the Council of American-Islamic Relations for placing the plaintiffs on the so-called terror watch list without due process.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-state-fear-runs-rampant-7-month-old-baby-put-terrorist-watch-list/#4Xr0HXkBaGoGrVKA.99"

Watch out for that evil 7 month old ISIL supporter....

 

[Kobie]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

Associating with ISIS, absent of any other crime, is not a crime in and of itself.

 

[PirateMk1]

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

Yes. 111111111111111

 

[Kobie]

Maybe someone should explain to the "constitutional scholar" that it's not the NRA stopping him from withholding constitutional rights without due process but the constitution itself.

Pretty retarded statement from someone everyone thinks is so smart.

/sigh

NRA bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters won't close a pretty obvious hole in our laws. So, to a degree, the NRA is somewhat respinsible.

 

[VanceMack]

Uh, None, I also think they should not be put on a no fly list. I don't think any American should ever lose a single right with conviction in court or at least a court order of some sort.

So...the president was full of **** and making a ridiculous statement knowing the media wouldnt call him out on it and his supporters would just parrot it. I think we agree then.

 

[PirateMk1]

I don't know if they can prove it in a court of law. They should try at least. Now, should he be on a no fly list?

No. 111111111111

 

[washunut]

Associating with ISIS, absent of any other crime, is not a crime in and of itself.

Depends on how you want to define "provides material support". If Obama is suggesting the person is buying guns for ISIS then surely he could/should be arrested.