Connect with us

What President Obama Says He’ll Do To Your Gun Rights

2nd Amend.

What President Obama Says He’ll Do To Your Gun Rights

During the second presidential debate a participant, Nina Gonzalez, asked President Barack Obama, “President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?”

Now, most of the firearms deliberately sold to straw purchasers in Operation Fast and Furious, while ATF officials watched on closed-circuit TV via surveillance cameras in gun stores, were AK-47s. These guns mostly went to Mexican drug cartels. They have since been used to kill a lot of people in Mexico. One of the AK-47s was recovered at a murder scene in Arizona after a drug runner used it to gun down a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

But rather than dig into the Obama’s administration’s cover-up of Operation Fast and Furious or its other anti-Second Amendment overtures, let’s just listen to President Obama and ponder what he says he would do to your gun rights if given a second term.



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

  • DaveO

    We don’t need more gun laws/controls. Lowlife lawbreakers don’t follow laws. All the anti-gun nuts need to use their heads for thinking, not sticking up their butts. Call the cops and wait 20 minutes or more, or shoot and save yourself in a second? Try to take my right to protect my life away and I’ll take your right to life away.

    • Jeff

      well said Dave. who gives these people the right to take away my rights? they dont have that right! The 2nd amendment protects my right to own guns. and that includes AK’s, AR’s or anything I want to own.

    • carlos morales

      Dave i agree 100%

    • stephen r

      Very admarabbal Dave but its not as easy to pull the triger on aman as is is on a paper target
      Nam vet

      • Bandit

        That is true even though I have had to do just that on at least 5 occasions, that was not fun at all. If a person is shooting at you then you do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family.

      • DaveO

        @yahoo-L4YYP26T2RJYJ75AOEV6EL6YOQ:disqus No one said it is easy to kill, I’m also a vet. These are not men and women any longer. They have been brainwashed to believe they are better then us, they have the right to take our rights. I am not higher or lower then any man. I’ve seen that someone gets arrested time and time again, to kill. I’ve seen these people stand up to kill innocent babies, but scream how we should not kill someone guilty of murder. I heard of the Fort Hood shooter killing our brave men and women and been told its workplace violence, attacks on an embassy is about a video. No we don’t need more laws but we do need to clean house. We need to clean out these commie cockroaches that refuse to believe in the Constitution. Thanks for your service to our country my brother in arms.

      • notax1776

        Stephen, you are right. There is a feeling you get when you pull the trigger on someone. It’s called recoil.

      • Ray Ake

        Well said { nam nov67~~feb.71~~ LRRP } DAVE you ever seen someone shot or have there throat cut ?? you see up close;;see there eye’s ?? have someone DIE in your arm’s ??

        • DaveO

          Shot yes I have, not only am I a vet, but I grew up in Brooklyn, NY. What has your question have to do with upholding the 2nd amendment? Does the oath you took when you enlisted expire? Does someone need to have killed, or had someone die in their arms mean a man can not defend the rights the Consitiution grants us? Someone that served between wars should not bear arms or talk of defending the Consitiution? Someone that believes in the Constitution but never served shouldn’t bear arms and fight or even talk of fighting because they never served.

        • 1tymtrvlr

          So, if I am reading your line correctly, I should hand the perp a questionaire? A.) You broke into my house to rob me?
          B.) You broke into my house to rape female members of my family?, C.) You broke into my house to rape male members of my family?, D.) You broke into my house to murder one of us?, E.) All of the above.

      • Ssgt,US Army,1964-1970

        Never had that problem,they shootin at me,they miss,they die.I see them first,they die.

      • gladdrial

        1st Infantry Division Viet-Nam! Really, try to assault my life and freedom and see!!!

    • ChuckDero

      Amen DaveO, Amen!

  • mathis1689

    What Obama says is usually radically different from what he does. How anyone in their right mind can trust a professional liar like him is beyond me anyway. But for those who may wonder what Obama would do to your gun rights if given the chance the answer is simple. He’d do the same thing that any and every other Marxist dictator would do. He’d eliminate them totally and either persecute or if necessary eliminate anyone who resisted.The only guns that Communists like Obama want around are the ones that the military,police,and their private security details have. All others should be gone forever as far as they’re concerned. They know that an armed citizenry is a danger to their lust for power.

  • Scooter Orsburn

    Barak Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton will do exactly N O T H I N G …. To M Y Gun Rights !

    • stephen r

      Many a man has laughed when the judge said hang him and cried and pleaded when he saw the rope. I hope I have the guts to do what you think you will.

  • Jeff

    Who are these people to tell me what I can or cant own? The 2nd Amendment protects my rights, it doesnt tell me as to what kind of guns I can own. That includes AK’s and AR’s. Obama just wants to disarm everyone. An unarmed citizen is a victim, unable to protect his/ her family.

    • Bandit

      An armed man is a citizen, An unarmed man is a subject. Are we citizens or are we subjects

      • Jeff

        I’m a citizen. never a subject.

  • Marlin208

    To take away the AK- 47s is just the first step in total gun control. They keep saying that controlling the guns controls the violence but in every country where the guns were taken away the criminals still get the guns. The only one hurt by all of that is the law abiding citizen who can not defend himself. Not only from criminals but from corrupt governments.
    Never, ever give up your guns. Let them take your house, car, cash and cat but never give up your guns. And do not give them a toe hold with taking away the AK’s either because next it will be hand guns and of course CC.

    • DaHeat

      Take a look at Great Britain where the cops are unarmed. They can not even defend themselves, let alone private citizens! And now British citizens can not even carry baseball bats to defend themselves! With the Obama administration in place, American cops are afraid to enforce the law again Blacks and Muslims (who commit the most violent crimes) out of fear of being accused of racism! The street thugs know this, and believe that they can do whatever they want and not be arrested or prosecuted because of their race! NoMoObama!…

  • john a.

    criminals kill people not guns. a gun never pulled a trigger.

    • Bandit

      This is true. they might as well say that knives kill people. The PLAIN truth of the fact is THAT people kill people with whatever tool that they can get their hands on, weather it be a gun or a knife or even a baseball bat, any thing can be used as a deadly weapon.

  • Chained

    I intend to ignore what he or the govt as a whole has in mind for gun control. Defiance is my motto and if we all would just learn to defy them we might actually make a difference.

    • Arizona Don

      Plan for the worst hope and pray for the best.


    I have news for Obama and the Government ———– go stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. The Government is asking for more trouble than they can imagine, especially here in Texas.

    • stephen r

      I am with you but I am not sure how it would work today. How far would he go? Would Nuke Texas? I do not know.

    • Arizona Don

      I have some very good friends in Texas. I have decided if Obama wins reelection I’ll likely be moving there maybe Alpine or Kerrville some where in West Texas. I came to Arizona from Nevada 50 years ago. I’d like to go back but they are getting to damned liberal progressive for me.

      I’m gonna have to get to a state that has no state income tax and can legally succeed, even though I love Arizona. The California liberal progressives are ruining both Arizona and Nevada. They are leaving California like rats off a sinking ship. They voted to raise taxes so many times many are leaving. But they never learn they just keep doubling down on taxes.

  • Silas Longshot

    Yep, the millions watching the debate circus picked up on every word the liar in chief said. One of the hundreds of reasons Romney’s ahead.

  • PissedoffVet

    When they talk about the 2nd amendment they always bring up the hunting and self defense thing and if you read what it says and what the founders had intended it has nothing to do with hunting or self defense it has to do with stopping the tyranny of our own government on its people. People need to wake up and understand what this is all about. To defend your self from being hurt by others is a God given right, to protect our selves from the Government is the 2nd Amendment. So when they chip away at this is all about keeping us from doing just that. And if we are to stop the government from putting tyranny upon its own people then were suppose to go out with our shot gun and fight the government who will bring Machine guns, Tanks, and Air force just how do you plan on stopping them with your hunting rifle and shot gun?

    • Arizona Don

      Your right about the second amendment. You are also right about being outgunned with the machine guns, tanks, etc. However, have we not learned a lot from the terrorists? Let me explain. When we fought the British for our freedom they wore red and marched in a straight line. We were out maned and out gunned. We won. How we won was we analyzed the situation and determined if we fought using their system we would lose so we fired from behind trees and used a guerrilla type action and kicked their behind. At the time they were the most powerful Army and Navy in the world. Even most of the American citizens did not think there was any possibility we could win. Against all the odds we did win. If we are forced into war, we will do it again if we use our heads! They will surely be out manned. There are more armed citizens within the US then most the Armies in the world put together. Between 80 and a 100 million. Think about that. Like they said in 1776, “if we do not hang together we will surely hang separately.” I would just as soon not hang, if I go down it will be fighting.

      A vet also.

      • PissedoffVet

        You are so right and my training has taught me this as well. One of the biggest problems we will have though is communications among our selves and you know that is a must no matter what operations your going to run. But im with you on what your saying it would be like Nam all over again except we would be the tunnel rats hit and run and your right there isn’t any army as large unless you think of how many China has in there army.

        Semper Fi brother

  • Parmenter

    Will the government take the ones already out there? If so,will there be just compensation? What happened under Clinton’s ban?

    • Arizona Don

      Steve, don’t worry about just compensation. Don’t ever give up your weapons. When the government confiscates our guns we are dead. Governments murdered 170 million people (said to be a conservative estimate) during the 20th century. But first they had to confiscate the weapons. Could that happen here? You bet!

      • PissedoffVet

        And it will if we let it everyone should be telling all your friends and family the eminent danger of what is really going on in this country.

  • john

    We need our guns to protect us from a oppressive government.

  • Eagles_76

    Go to hell you islamic cockroach.The only thing obo will get from me are the bullets as they exit the barrel of my gun.

  • wyoming minuteman

    What Muhammed Obama would “like” to do to our gun rights don’t amount to much. What they are already doing to “help” their own cause will continue to bite them in the ass.(F&F) (U.N.) WE need to continue educating each other on “them” and be ever vigilent and cautious. The snakes are everywhere, and when the time comes, do what we normally do to snakes. Untill then, shoot straight, and keep yer powder dry. Semper Fi brothers and sisters!!

    • Arizona Don

      I’m with you.

  • Arizona Don

    Everyone need not carry a gun in a right to carry state like Arizona. However, the threat that everyone can is enough to reduce certain kinds of crime. Here in Arizona it has done just that.

    In the late 1800’s when most all gun carrying was legal it was a much more polite society. Then a very restrictive law went into effect August 31, 1911, the Sullivan Act became effective in New York and it is still active today. It is, I’m told, the second most restrictive gun control law in the United States of America. Right behind Chicago. Has it worked? No, absolutely not. From 1900 to 1994 when the assault weapons ban was put in place by Bill Clinton over two thousand restrictive gun laws were established in the United States. None of them ever reduced crime. Allowing the everyday law abiding citizen to carry firearms legality is the answer not more restrictions. However, the Federal government will never either allow or suggest that as the answer because gun owners also have an effect on their actions as well. Here again check with any dictatorship and you will find they do not like citizens rights to own and carry firearms and one of the first things necessary for them to do is either register or confiscate the guns. That is what Obama will do if reelected.

    There are no criminals or street gangs anywhere who obey the gun laws. Ask any one of them and they will tell you without hesitation that restrictive gun laws assist them not hinder them. Anyone with common sense knows that. Only those ignorant liberal progressives think gun control can ever work. The laws are for law abiding citizens. The criminals do not obey laws, consequently, who is it new laws would impede the most? That’s right the law abiding citizen!

    In the final analysis, if Barack Obama is reelected for four more years you can kiss the second amendment goodby. Furthermore, when it goes it will not be long before the rest of the Constitution goes also along with our free enterprise system.

    Vote very carefully between now and November 6. As a matter of fact vote like you freedoms and livelihood depend on it, because they do. There is only one choice if we wish to remain a Constitutional Republic and that is Mitt Romney.

    • PissedoffVet

      You are right on all accounts. All you have to do is look what England did and look what happened after they took up all the guns form the legal citizens the crime rate went up 60% the government had to ban two web site from the national grid the people were buying steel base ball bats to protect them and there families from the crime and by the time the cops were getting to the crime scenes the citizens were beating people to death so now they don’t even want them to protect them selves.

      So if you want to keep what we got now everyone had better wake up and see the cliff we are headed for at break neck speed. For sure if he is elected your gonna see a revolt like 1776 again and there will be a lot of blood letting going on.

  • uzitiger

    These anti gun nuts don’t care about criminals having guns as long as we are disarmed and can’t rise against them. This is the real reason they want our guns. We are a deterrent to their desired tyranny.

  • B.f. Caffrey

    Chicago has always been a cesspool of government corruption. It’s no better today. Democrats control the city and it represents just what we should expect from them. I urge folks to find a video of McCarthy addressing the church crowd. It’s a marvelous piece of psychological propaganda. He leads in by talking about “Jim Crow laws”, segregation and “black codes” being “government-sponsored racism”, which was true enough. This gets a black audience’s emotions worked up. But then he says today’s federal gun laws are also “government-sponsored racism”. NOW he has their attention. Their emotional attention. He then says that such laws “facilitate the flow of illegal weapons” into cities to kill minorities. He’s telling the crowd that Federal gun laws are “too lax” and that this allows guns to flow into major cities to kill their children. All without a shred of evidence. Rather than tell the crowd that both nature and economics abhor a void and seek to fill it, he says because Chicago has tried to ban guns, it’s the lax Federal laws that “force” guns to come to Chicago (where demand is high and supply is low). It’s classic propaganda using a formula honed and polished in Europe 75 years ago.

  • Rwolf

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias?

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents
    that pose a threat to National Security?

    Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security.
    Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

    Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

    The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

    During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

    NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

    You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil
    evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

    Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

    Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

More in 2nd Amend.



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

To Top
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become a Patriot Outdoor News insider.

Send this to friend