Does anyone think this is NOT what's going to happen?

[Sugarbug]

Ok, so Hilary signing the UN's ATT was a sure bet. I, and many others, was completely surprised when we found out that she would not sign it. What were they playing at? Or did they really value our 2nd amendment rights enough to go against the farce that is the UN?

Fast forward a day or so and the UN comes out saying that the ATT would be voted on again at a later date.



Of course!

Obama, realizing that he may have some votes coming from very pro-2nd amendment people would not want to alienate them so close to an election. So he makes a gallant statement by refusing to sign the ATT. However, he still very much wants to sign it and reaches an agreement with the UN to publicly refuse the ATT with the caveat that he will sign it once the election is over.

By doing this he insures he is not losing votes by signing it and perhaps gaining a few in the meantime. Once the election is over, he WILL sign it as he has absolutely nothing to lose at that point.

Am I off base here? This is what I immediately thought was going to happen when the news came out.

 

[chad]

Yep, nothing is out of the ordinary here.

 

[SGT_Kramer]

Sounds like you Mr Miyagi hit that nail!

 

[chad]

Didley 2012

 

[Armnhammer]

http://visiontoamerica.com/11495/ob...ngress-in-attempt-to-make-buying-guns-harder/

Now he plans to bypass congress on gun control...

 

[Armnhammer]

"our forefathers sure made it hard for me to bring about change" -OBama

 

[Sugarbug]

http://visiontoamerica.com/11495/ob...ngress-in-attempt-to-make-buying-guns-harder/

Now he plans to bypass congress on gun control...

Carney told reporters that the Justice Department will *enhance security by making it harder for those who should not have these weapons to obtain them* by calling for more background checks.

So... what? After they do the background check, they're going to call back and do it again? Every firearm purchased from an FFL requires a background check as is...

 

[Armnhammer]

So... what? After they do the background check, they're going to call back and do it again? Every firearm purchased from an FFL requires a background check as is...

I think he's pushing for background checks on private sales. You would have to go thru an FFL just like you do a notary for bill of sale.

 

[Sugarbug]

I think he's pushing for background checks on private sales. You would have to go thru an FFL just like you do a notary for bill of sale.

Ah.

 

[Speedlace]

http://visiontoamerica.com/11495/ob...ngress-in-attempt-to-make-buying-guns-harder/

Now he plans to bypass congress on gun control...

A blog post making what he said sound more sinister than what was really said.

So... what? After they do the background check, they're going to call back and do it again? Every firearm purchased from an FFL requires a background check as is...

A blog post putting words in his mouth.

Start 5:00-10:30


MR. CARNEY: I have nothing new to announce. I mean, he did very recently give those remarks at the Urban League and he'll continue to instruct his administration to take action towards common-sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, but make it harder and harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law to obtain them. Some progress has been made on those instructions with regards to our background check system. And the President will continue to press that, as well as pressing the variety of ways that this administration is assisting local communities in their efforts to combat violence.
...
...
Q: Does the President share Minority Leader Pelosi’s view that even if Democrats controlled Congress, there still wouldn’t be the votes for significant gun legislation? And is that why the White House hasn’t pushed for new or tougher legislation more strongly?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the President has made his views plain on this, which is that he is for common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights -- very important Second Amendment rights that American citizens have, but that make it harder and harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law from obtaining them.

There is no question that there has been a reluctance to act in Congress on these issues. Whether that will continue to be the case in the future is anyone’s prediction. The President is focused on the progress we can make along the lines I just described.

So again, his positions on various issues I think we’ve talked about. He believes that we can take action within the existing environment that moves the ball forward in terms of enforcement, that enhances background checks, that makes it harder for those who shouldn’t have weapons under existing law -- makes it harder for them to obtain weapons, but continues to ensure that Second Amendment rights are protected.

Q: But does anything -- either one of these incidents suggest that there need to be new gun control legislation?

MR. CARNEY: I think the President addressed this at the Urban League, John. And his view is, as I’ve said, that we need to take common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights and make it harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law from obtaining weapons.

I think he made clear, too, in his speech in New Orleans that violence in America is a problem that is greater than just the issue of gun laws. And he talked very clearly about the prevalence of violence in America, that even as overall statistics show that crime has gone down over these last many years but there is still too much violence. And incidents like the ones you mentioned are horrific, and our hearts go out to the victims of such appalling acts of violence, but we should not forget that there are victims of violence every day in America, and we need to address that problem in a concerted way that deals with education and summer jobs and other ways to help address the violence problem in America.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ss-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-862012

 

[Sugarbug]

Not really putting words in his mouth... but if you say so.

The article I read and posted about gave no further explanation as to what "more background checks" meant. It was an exaggeration to point that "more background checks" won't do anything when the people are already passing background checks. If, as Armnhammer stated, he is meaning for private transactions, that makes sense, but it was not even implied in the article.

 

[sandman7925]

I agree and thought it was obvious. Political grandstanding with a future motive

 

[Sugarbug]

I agree and thought it was obvious. Political grandstanding with a future motive

I agree, but people have been praising the NRA for stopping this and blah, blah. Not to be offensive to those people, but I simply do not think the NRA had anything to do with that decision. I guess we'll know in a few months.

 

[sandman7925]

The NRA compromises, so now I say screw the NRA. I'm done compromising, but I'm just one man so it only makes myself fell better

 

[Speedlace]

Not really putting words in his mouth... but if you say so.

The article I read and posted about gave no further explanation as to what "more background checks" meant. It was an exaggeration to point that "more background checks" won't do anything when the people are already passing background checks.

Not really..?
Either the writer did or did not.

There is no "more background checks". Mr. Carney did not "call" for anything.

There is a vid of Carney speaking and a transcript of that press conference.

 

[machinedrummer]

The next pres will appoint at least one Justice possibly more. If it's oboma the Supreme Court will make the UN look like a church choir.

 

[Sugarbug]

Not really..?
Either the writer did or did not.

There is no "more background checks". Mr. Carney did not "call" for anything.

There is a vid of Carney speaking and a transcript of that press conference.

Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that I was putting words in his mouth when I was only commenting on the article.

But yes, reading the transcript you provided does not lead me to believe that was intent.

 

[Leonidas]

Y'know, I don't think I could count how many threads there have been about this. Both here and on the various other forums. And I think is it a good thing to be aware.

That said, it changes nothing. The plain, simple, unvarnished and undeniable truth is....."they" are coming for our guns.

There are only 3 uncertainties:

1. Who
2. When
3. What "we" will do about it.

The first two are actually irrelevant.

 

[Sugarbug]

Y'know, I don't think I could count how many threads there have been about this. Both here and on the various other forums. And I think is it a good thing to be aware.

That said, it changes nothing. The plain, simple, unvarnished and undeniable truth is....."they" are coming for our guns.

There are only 3 uncertainties:

1. Who
2. When
3. What "we" will do about it.

The first two are actually irrelevant.

I just don't want our side to be complacent in this transparent move.

Loved you 300 by the way.

 

[Leonidas]

Agreed. Stay agitated. Cause we're going to be faced with an almost impossible decision, some day.