Liberty and Freedom

Obama: Working on Gun Control “Under the Radar”

“On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-co...

Isn’t EVERYTHING Obama does “under the radar”?!

Tags: amendment, control, gun, obama, radar, second, under

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by albaby on May 31, 2011 at 11:10am

The first part of the process will be to claim the law will ban only illegal weapons. The second part will be to declare all but single shot firearms illegal. Ask Australia or New Zealand how that worked. There will be stupid laws like the Clinton Gun ban which banned "assault weapons" with bayonet mounts. (Anyone have statistics on how many people were bayonetted with "assault weapons" ?) Darned few, if any, would be my guess.

Other tactics may be to require guns to leave a serial imprint on a fired cartiridge, require serial numbers on bullets or casings, permits required to purchase ammo etc. There's no end to the creativity of tyrants. Join the NRA and help fight these people.

Permalink Reply by Conservative Candace on June 2, 2011 at 7:36am

I think Obama's admin is smarter than bans - they will just make the ammo hard if not impossible to get.

Permalink Reply by albaby on June 6, 2011 at 5:54pm

Hec odesn't have to work under the Radar. He has Republicans working on his behalf in Lansing.

The physician not being held liable is just plain wrong. They should be held accountable for their mistakes. Recommending a person not be allowed to drive can be a big disruption in their life and ability to earn an income. If a physician truly feels a person should not drive, they should be able to back up their recommendation. I can also see where this could lead to an anti-gun physician's recommending a person not be allowed to carry a weapon. No liability. What's there for him to lose?

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=138256

Absolutely not. This same report denying a drivers license could also be used to deny gun permits. What the hell are you people thinking of? You are trying to do what the Democrats failed to do. And no liability on behalf of the doctor! Good luck in 2012. I've just about had it with the Republican party