A seemingly confused President Obama takes stand against gun owners during debate

“[F]rankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s.”

- President Obama Oct 16, 2012

As co-founder and spokesperson for OpenCarry.org, I very much wanted to hear a question about guns put to the candidates. More specifically, like many Americans, I wanted to hear what kind of Supreme Court justices the candidates would nominate where gun rights are concerned.

In fact, we formulated a question that encompassed the core of these concerns and issued a press release urging that the candidates be asked the following:

A divided United States Supreme Court has twice ruled by way of razor thin 5 to 4 votes that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

However the 4 dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller stated that “self-defense . . . is not the [Second] Amendment’s concern.

If you are elected and have the occasion to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will you choose a nominee who believes that the Second Amendment is concerned with the individual right of self-defense, or one who believes that self-defense is not the Second Amendment’s concern?

However, when a question about guns was finally asked during tonight’s town-hall style debate it was nothing more than yet another attempt to resurrect support for the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’.

This question clearly played to the President’s ideology  and he took the opportunity to reiterate his support for the failed Clinton-era policy despite his admission that the violence in our cities is not being caused by sporting firearms. Nonetheless, he assured the crowd that he wants to ban them.

He followed this up with a number of statements that seem to indicate that he doesn’t even understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and the semi-automatic sporting rifles that would actually be affected by the ban.

But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of his comments:

“[W]eapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.”

“[W]hat I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

Oh yes … If only someone would regulate fully-automatic firearms, silencers, explosives, and war ordinance.  You know … like the United States did in 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act.

That’s right folks.  The “automatic weapons … that were designed for soldiers in war theaters” are already heavily regulated and have been for almost 80 years. And yet the President of the United States is attempting to use them as an election issue in 2012.

So we are left with two possibilities.

One … he is so insulated from mainstream America that he truly believes that anyone can walk into a gun store and emerge with a fully-automatic firearm.

Or two … he is purposefully mis-stating the facts in order to take advantage of undecided voters who are unfamiliar with the country’s firearms laws.

In either case, it is conduct unbecoming of a president and a clear attack on the rights of gun owners.

And in the meantime, Governor Romney continues to imply that he might support gun control if it were brought to him by a bi-partisan group “coming together.

People may argue for days as to whether Romney or Obama won the debate but I do know who lost … the truth.

© 2012, John Pierce. All rights reserved.


About John Pierce

Monachus Lex is written by Virginia attorney John Pierce. John is a life-long gun rights advocate, an NRA certified instructor and co-founder of the nationwide gun rights group OpenCarry.org.

He has an undergraduate degree in Computer Information Systems, an MBA from George Mason University and is a 2012 Honors Graduate of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, MN.

Professionally, John is a member of the American Bar Association Second Amendment Civil Rights Litigation Subcommittee and his writings have been published by the ABA Civil Rights Litigation Committee and the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee.

In addition, his open carry advocacy has been featured on Nightline and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.
This entry was posted in 'Assault Weapons', General Civil Rights, President Obama, Presidential Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A seemingly confused President Obama takes stand against gun owners during debate

  1. SteveG says:

    In my opinion the place to keep and win the gun control debate is Congress and not the White House. Romney is no 2A champion like my first choice (Perry) was, but I’d rather take a chance with Congress sending pro2A legislation to him (such as National CCW) than Obama.

  2. Grapeshot says:

    Mitt Romney missed a golden opportunity tonight. He could have exposed the hypocrisy and falsehoods being perpetuated about guns.

    Still I’ll take an Obama defeat anyway I can get it. Then look to the congress and the courts to stem the tide of the last four years.

  3. The third option should be: He sees no difference between the two. Justice Stevens also stated that mistake. We can call it ignorance, but it’s simple: Anti-gunners do not believe semi-automatic guns, the most common guns sold in the last 100 years in handgun form, and the most common in the last 25 in rifle form, are protected. They call it a “distinction without a difference”, and actually claim semi-auto as worse than full auto in that it allows for more precise firing than “opening up”.

  4. Jack says:

    Let’s not forget cheap handguns. They are what criminals are using, so they must go. (eyeroll)

  5. dan says:

    Pretty sure it was Romney who said there is still an automatic firearms ban.. There isn’t. A good friend of mine definiately just bought a fully automatic AK-47 at a gun show in UT without having to pass a background check.
    And “heavily regulated” does not mean off the street. Buying new is heavily regulated. Buying used is NOT heavily regulated. Case in point, my paragraph above. And the comment about cheap hand guns is false. Obama did not say during the debate to take away cheap hand guns. He made the point that gun violence occurs with all forms of guns. He made that point while pushing for the idea that we need better schools and more opportunity for low-income kids so they don’t have to go into gangs to stay safe in their own neighborhoods. He never once said we should regulate hand guns.
    And the idea that he is for taking guns away is rediculous. He had 4 years to do it.. why wouldn’t he have done it already?
    The best thing that can happen to the NRA is another term for Obama.

    • John Pierce says:

      Dan,

      If your friend bought a fully automatic AK-47 at a UT gun show without filling out a Form 4 and undergoing the background check, then he should expect a visit from the BATFE shortly. I would be glad to put them in touch with him so he can clear up the issue if you would like.

      However, I suspect that this is just a tall tale you tell in order to stir up emotion among the uninformed.

      Let’s be clear … There is no such thing as an undocumented private sale where NFA firearms are concerned. If you believe so then go ahead and post your friend’s contact info and the BATFE will get this cleared up in 5 to 10 years with time off for good behavior.

      John

  6. Pingback: Debate: Another POV | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  7. Uncle Lar says:

    Always keep in mind that though the decision in Heller to overturn the DC gun ban was a 5/4 split the concurrent finding by the court that the Second Amendment applies to individual rights was a unanimous 9/0 vote.
    The anti gun crowd always trumpets the split vote and quickly slips past the unanimous finding. Go figure.

  8. Ivan Pistov says:

    I am struck by the revival of the “cheap handguns” issue that USED to be the “Saturday Nite Special” issue. So, Mr. Obama, would you please define for us what a cheap handgun is? The Brady bunch never quite came up with a hard and fast definition. If all you guys out there will remember, the Brady Bunch didn’t like Cheap, Small, Big, Semiauto, Large mags, or anything bigger than a .22. So why would the Chicago gangs be limited to the CHEAP handguns? Or maybe a S&W .357 Model 27 qualifies as CHEAP.
    STOLEN is REALLY cheap. In the early days of the Obama administration, Eric Holder made mention that they only wanted to make a few changes in the gun laws or rules, one of them was a complete ban on semi-auto guns of all kinds. My take at the time was JUST A FEW CHANGES? Eric, Mr. AG, that is not “just a few changes”.
    You can expect major backlash if this gets even started rolling, in Congress or by Executive Order.

  9. sofa says:

    Those rights are unalienable.
    Princes in robes or in legislature cannot grant them nor take them away (unless you buy into their fiction).
    Those clowns deny their oath of office when they infringe, nullifying their limited enumerated authority.

    In the end, tyrants use force- and you have the rights you are willing to protect against violence, from time to time.
    Thus was born the MagnaCarta and the Declaration.

  10. amanda says:

    @Dan,
    What did this “friend” of yours pay for a “fully automatic” AK-47 at the UT gun show?

    Just curious because in thirty years & gun shows in ten different States, I’ve yet to see one for sale.

    EV-ER.

  11. Pro Gun says:

    Remember…

    Romney is a “Mormon”..
    While Obama is the 2nd “m” less!

    Pro Gun.. and Proud of it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>