A lot of people claimed Obama would take guns away for 8 years, and he didn't; why are gun owners still so concerned about the 2nd Amendment being gutted?
Original question:A lot of people claimed Obama would take guns away for 8 years, and he didn’t; why are gun owners still so concerned about the 2nd Amendment being gutted?Obama, being a terrible anti-American traitor, did sign, as the President of the USA, the United Nations’ Small Arms Treaty in an attempt to legally subvert the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by appealing to a self-proclaimed “higher authority” than our own Soveriegn Nation, which would in theory make private ownership of small arms (i.e. handguns and rifles) illegal. I say “in theory” because no American would ever feel compelled to answer for anything to the pathetic joke that is the UN.So, yes, Obama did in fact try to “take our guns” and he did so as a coward (not surprising) by doing it in secret (also not surprising) with little fanfare or coverage by the also culpable and guilty mainstream media (also not surprising), in so much as appealing to many of our enemies around the world (sadly, not at all surprising) in his attempt to disarm the country that blindly elected him.Obama hates America and Americans. But to answer your question more directly: just because he didn’t take our guns, didn’t mean that he didn’t try. He even played dirty in trying to do it, a typical mode of accomplishing things the Dems prefer to work under. So yes, one would be a fool to think Obama did not try to take our guns away, and that anti-American Democrats (and some Republicans also) are still in fact trying very hard to do so.
Do American citizens honestly believe that banning the ownership of firearms wouldn’t help to eliminate shootings in schools?
No because of the remainder problem.Back in the 1970s during the Carter Administration when the gun control movement really got its feet under it, a study was commissioned to explore how the banning of guns would affect criminal usage over time. This was involving handgun bans which, then and now, are the primary firearm used by criminals.The study essentially concluded that back then with an estimated 90 to 120 million firearms in private hands that even if all guns were banned and all sales ceased, existing stocks of guns absent all-out forced confiscation were sufficient to supply criminal needs if each gun was used once, and only once, in a crime for the next two centuries.This is the supply side remainder problem. Banning guns today do not make the existing ones go away. And that study was supremely conservative in the use of a gun by a criminal. In more realistic terms, existing stocks back then if stolen by criminals and used the way criminals use them could keep guns in criminals hands for the next 300–400 years easily.So yes, I honestly believe banning guns won’t do a thing to solve school shootings for two reasons:You won’t eliminate the availability of guns via criminal access or acquisition.School shootings, while sensational and frightening, are a statistical non-event when it comes to criminal gun usage. They are a small percent of an already small percent of a specific type of crime.Banning guns does not eliminate them. Even if you try to confiscate them by force. And if you did more than enough would remain to be problematic for literally centuries to come. This isn’t the 1970s anymore. The number of guns in private hands is now 4–5 times that of when the study was commissioned and even back then they considered bans/confiscation useless due to the remainder problem.Short answer: The horses bolted the barn a long time ago. Too many guns out there to ban and have any effect at all on school shootings or criminal conduct in general. School shootings are a psychological symptom. Guns are merely the tool, not the cause.
Why doesn't the American government just ban guns?
Hey there!I have done gun debates at school… And let me tell you this, right from the gecko. Don’t join the hate gun club. Here’s a general, brief statement of a ten page essay that I wrote. I will leave a link to the essay if you want to read it.1 - Funny you mention China because last I heard was numerous mass STABBINGS in China. Where men with knives would walk into a kindergarden classroom, stab the teachers, children, etc… Funny how the media doesn’t point that out. ESPECIALLY since it happened close to the date of the Sandy Hook shooting.2 - Taking away guns reduces our chance of fighting back against the government if it say, is deciding to turn into a dictatorship… *cough* *cough* China *cough* *cough* Don’t even get me started on the horrendous human rights violation in China and no one can do anything because guess what? They get sent to camps where they get harvested for organs… WITH GUNS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAVE!3 - Researchers have shown that shootings happen not because guns are evil, but of mental health issues. Sandy Hook and numerous other shootings are by people who have grown from a horrendous childhood (Sandy Hook kid was bullied intensely by his peers) or an extremist (2016 shooting in a gay club by you know, straight guys). So ban guns and ignore the problem or should we say cut off part of a cancer and let it grow back?4 - Its way better to train people in gun usage, like a police course 101, but less intensive and more friendly. Research have shown that VIOLENT teens who have gone through martial arts programs are calmer and more productive members of society. Going back to number 3, what was it about mental health?5 - Guns are a great self defense tool. You might say, “Guns are evil.” But picture your sixteen year old beautiful daughter in the house when burglars invade. Would you rather come home and comfort your daughter for defending the house or would you rather come home, find her naked and gang raped? Your choice. (Yeah, I know, damsel in distress and all that, sorry feminists!)To me the hate gun club is just, horrendously… Wrong. If the people would just spend two seconds doing research, they would find a better long term solution. Pretending that gun don’t exist doesn’t make it disappear, it is there, and it can be used for good…Thanks with much respect,Kent ZhengGun, Harder or Easier to Get? - Kent Zheng
Is President Obama taking the Charleston shooting as an advantage for his gun control initiative?
Not in any serious way.President Obama has arguably been softer on gun control than any president in decades. Not because he loves guns, but because, before he even got into office, the gun wing of the American right was 100% convinced, based on nothing at all, that he was coming for our guns. So much so, in fact, that they proceeded to buy ammunition literally faster than it could be produced, and then claim that ammunition being out of stock was Obama's doing.President Obama knew from word one that the slightest, most incremental move to regulate guns in any way would mean a political fight that would never end, and he didn't want to spend his entire administration fighting with the NRA. One high profile shooting after another was not enough to make a real different in that analysis.Now that he's nearing the end of his second term, he's probably frustrated that nothing has really been done, and is certainly more willing to comment on it, but realistically, the pro-gun forces in the U.S. are too committed and too powerful for anything to change.Saying he's making a political issue of this is nonsense. Like any good leader, he's looking at a tragedy and asking what we can do to stop it from happening again. I'm sure he thinks that some method of gun control might help, but that's just not realistic in this climate.