Is Obama and Clinton's call for gun control while having armed security hypocritical?
No. Personal security and gun control are two separate issues. You could be prohibited from having a firearm but that doesn't mean that the state couldn't permit or license certain individuals to carry guns in the performance of their profession. For example, the common citizen is not permitted to purchase explosives, but if you were to work in the fireworks industry you probably could get licensed to purchase explosives (I'm not an expert on explosives or fireworks, this is just an example). Using that example, would it hypocritical of the Obamas and Clintons to support "explosives control" when they watch fireworks on the 4th of July?There are too many guns, and this is not a real issue. Hillary is playing to her base and the NRA is not seen favorably in that base. Once the primaries are over, I wouldn't be surprised to see her soften up and come back to the center to appeal to the more voters. She will be in favor of more gun control but she won't support total confiscation.
Are the recent attacks on the NRA finally destroying gun rights in the US?
Last I saw a few weeks back membership had increased about 10% (about 500,000) since little Hogg started his public tantrum facilitated by mom at CNN. That is after big Hogg and his coworkers at the FBI failed at their job to interdict an identified threat in Nicholas Cruz. Might be because the FBI and DOJ in general have been too busy pushing the false Russia collusion story in their coup attempt against Trump on behalf of the former regime. Speaking of former regime, that's the other half of why Cruz managed to pull off his mayhem, because under Obama the school district and Sheriff were encouraged to ignore the signs of a troubled mind in the unicorn fart hope a psychotic would magically turn sane.The NRA is still going strong, and most sane Americans understand that punishment for crimes belongs on the perp and those that facilitated them in their crime (FBI, Sheriff & school district that all ignored the plethora of evidence this kid intended to shoot up the school).
What do you think of Obama Gun Control?
It's unconstitutional on several levels and it solves nothing, it just takes more rights away from gun owners, most who are law abiding citizens because criminals don't register guns, that's how they get tracked. An assault rifle is not necessary to own but it's an individual choice and should be. I don't care how many rounds someone has, if it protects their family, it's fine with me. Gun control is a joke, if they really wanted to make a difference they would figure out how to go after the illegal guns, not the legal ones but it's hard to track something you can't easily find. Also tougher background checks don't work either, especially if someone mentally unstable has never sought treatment with a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist can only release third party information if they believe their patient is a danger to others or themselves. It's hard to know someone is unstable unless they have an actual record of it from a qualified doctor. Part of the problem why these tragedies keep happening is because of the media coverage, they glorify the shooters and marginalize the victims, which only encourages COPYCATS.
Why do some people think Obama will try to take their guns away?
It is another small step toward limiting guns. If you cannot make sweeping legislation to actually take away guns, your next best option is to take small steps to make it more difficult to buy them. As soon as we have gotten used to this, they will introduce another bill, that slowly chips away at the right to own guns. Maybe next time, it will be that all guns will have to be registered in a national registry.In 10 years, they will then be able to arrest anybody who owns a gun, but has not registered it, while simultaneously limiting gun buyers for more and more reasons. In 20 years actually "taking away guns" would then be a reality.Think of this in terms of the 1st amendment. This is the equivalent of saying that we aren't going after free speech, but we just are going to limit it to people with crime free records... after all, it is dangerous to let criminals, or mentally ill people speak freely. Some people might support that, and say "if you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about." At the same time though, it becomes easier for them to limit the speech of the next group that is in opposition. Creeping legislation is as dangerous as sweeping legislation, especially when it comes to the bill of rights.
When did President Obama start taking guns away, if he did at all?
The only thing I have to add here is that there is always a general concern that a politician is going to want to make a grand gesture after some horrible event, whether or not that gesture is in any way connected to a real solution. After all, when we see something horrible on the news, what we crave is the reassurance that 'somebody is doing something' and what we don't usually do is a lot of boring research into statistics and the law.That's not to say that any politician who wants to change the law on the state or federal level is automatically a pandering populist; but for the many who are pandering populists, this is when they get on TV and make the most noise. That may sound insensitive of me, but even a cursory examination of the history of gun legislation and the 2nd amendment will tell you that it's really quite difficult for the federal government to pass legislation relating to firearms, and so whenever anyone in the federal government talks about it, there is a near-zero chance that they really intend to do something about it.The state level is a different matter as states can and do exercise a lot of control over firearms. Whether or not that control has the desired effect on gun homicide is a matter for debate.I never had the impression that President Obama was any better or worse than any other politician with respect to this kind of thing. Reactionary people tend to get a lot of media attention because it's easy to punctuate their beliefs with exclamation marks and outrage. There are several areas, like the NLRB or the EPA, in which President Obama or his agencies feel very comfortable intervening on the basis of execute authority in matters that previous Presidents have not done to the same extent; so you can see the kernel of concern where one might get the impression that 'Obama is out to get me' because he's certainly out to fix what he thinks is broken; but there has never been much support for the argument that he would expend valuable political capital on an uphill battle for what is usually an unpopular legislative move.If I had guns to sell you, though, I'd probably keep that thought to myself!
Will Obama ban the FN Five seven or 5.7x28mm ammunition?
EDIT: KUSH, I bought the gun because I like it and it will make an adequate self defense and target shooting weapon that my girlfriend can handle as well. It is actually priced lower than many 1911 type pistols or other handguns. Just because its not a Glock does not mean its too expensive. Also, I can get ammo for the same price I get .45acp at. Besides its really up to me how I spend my pennies. Finally, as for the round's ballistic performance, it has been shown to out perform 9mm (check out the video on youtube if you don't believe it) and actually does not seem to overpenetrate in most conditions. Try doing a little more research on the weapon and maybe even try shooting one before you pass judgement. You may be pleasantly surprised. Overall, I know I made the right choice so thank you for your input and I'm sorry if you don't agree.
Has the Liberal obsession with guns really come to this? Is this insane?
Well I, for one, am glad to see that someone is FINALLY standing up for the rights of a largely ignored minority of American society - LEGO people. Just imagine what the friend's LEGO person must have felt when he suddenly found himself looking down the barrel of what was, to him, a deadly weapon. I think Obama should immediately appoint a Toy Czar.
Obama supporters . . . Why do you ignore the continual bigotry?
I support Obama but those leaders do not speak for Africam Americans. Just like so many other so called leaders, they have their own agenda and are using candidates like Obama to be in the spotlight. I'm gonna tell you a story about Jesse: I'm a graphic designer from Chicago. Last year I designed a poster for the anti-gun rallies Rainbow Push (Jesse's organization), were holding. My poster included tons of influential people over the course of history that have been assassinated to reiterate the issue of gun violence. Everyone (the media, rally supporters, people on the street and even people in the organization) was in awe about this poster. My partner and I approached Jesse about this poster and wanted him to hold one while he was talking. Do you know what this man said? "It doesn't have my name on it!" My jaw hit the ground but I was not surprised about how selfish and arrogant people get when there's a camera in their face. Obama is a very down to earth kind of guy and he's not arrogant at all. People like Jesse and Farrahkhan tend to abuse their roles as leaders and start thinking in terms of themselves. Trust me! Not all African Americans support Jesse and Farrakhan. They do not speak for me as an African American woman. Black people know about the hypocrisy. But we're not voting for them. Think about it: As a people, African Americans have no powerful, positive leaders left. MLK and Malcolm X are gone and all we have left are corrupt, money-hungry, glory hogs. Obama has the power to inspire people, especially African Americans. Why do you think his opponents see him as such a threat? He speaks for the little guy and brings hope to a lot of disenfranchised youth. He's for the next generation and his rivals see that. So many of his rivals in both parties talk about reforms and bills that benefit a lot of people THEIR age. Obama deals with issues that affect the younger people (as he should) because they are the future. Got off the subject.....sorry. Anyway, you would not see MLK or Malcolm X at a Farrahkhan/Sharpton/Jackson speech. Even they saw their greediness back in their day. We know about them, but they're not the ones who are the issue. In their own mind, these leaders think they are but they're not. Obama is not like them and that's why people support him.
Why are liberals ruining this country?
This is not a joke. This is coming from someone who WAS open minded middle of the road about politics just a year and a half ago. Now, I am pretty much everything conservative (with the exception of supporting gay marriage.) I love my guns, my God, my Country, my freedom, and my soldiers. BUT, I became conservative when I realized how ****** up liberals were and their agenda. Everything they're doing is just disgusting. They wanted to remove from the 9/11 museum the iconic poster of the firefighters raising the flag because it was too "rah rah American" Seriously what the hell? This is America right? We should be patriotic right? Liberal Feminists freaked hate when the royal baby was a boy, and even hoped he would become transgender. Kids are getting expelled from school because they bite their PopTart into the shape of a gun, or wear a Romney shirt to school. THE FACT that Obama tried to cover up the Benghazi attacks and liberals are still backing him up is just absurd. The fact that the NFL team the Washington "Redskins" might get their name changed to be more politically correct is also absurd. I just can't believe we have fallen this low as a nation under the liberals socialist and communist agenda. I even had a dream that Obama literally burned the constitution. Again may I remind you that a year and a half ago, I was open minded. All it takes is to take a step back and see everything from a neutral perspective. Let me assure you, if you do that, you will see how crazy bat **** these liberals have gotten.