Obama to America: We’re Taking Your Guns, But Leave The Pit-bulls Alone

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a native and resident of the South Carolina Upstate. He received his MBA from North Greenville University and is actively involved in South Carolina politics.
Enjoy This Article? Share It! Facebook2097Twitter19Reddit25Pinterest0StumbleUpon0LinkedIn0Google+1

Following the most recent mass shootings – particularly Sandy Hook Elementary School – there has been a renewed effort by the left to impose restrictive gun legislation across the nation. While Barack Obama’s efforts failed in Congress earlier this year, many state and local governments have enacted new gun laws over the last couple of years. These efforts, needless to say, have raised concerns among America’s legal – and law-abiding – firearm owners.obama guns

While even the most liberal members of Congress deny that their ultimate goal is gun confiscation - vs. their stated objectives of outlawing “assault rifles” (a misnomer – AR-15s are NOT assault rifles) and extended-round cartridges , in addition to the implementation of a national gun registry, many members of the gun community don’t buy it. As a result, gun sales are through the roof, ammunition has become scarce – and some gun owners are even caching their weapons in preparation for an all-out assault by the “gun grabbers” on the Second Amendment.

Add to these concerns the fact that Team Obama is about to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty -adopted with U.S. support this past April by the U.N. General Assembly. The reach of this long-term, carefully crafted treaty goes far beyond the publicly articulated goals of even the most ardent of U.S. gun-control groups.

According to experts familiar with the treaty, the mere signing of said treaty would obligate the U.S. to not act “contrary” to its terms. Those terms are what scare the daylights out of gun owners and Second Amendment defenders across America.

For example, as reported by The Washington Times, a 2006 U.N. report lays out with frightening clarity the intent of the Arms Trade Treaty:

According to the report’s Eurocentric worldview, there is no “right” to self-defense. Moreover, national governments are obligated to restrict civilian ownership of firearms – including determining which citizens properly “understand” firearms and should therefore be allowed to own them – or not.

The Times reports that another important but little-known set of documents was crafted by the U.N. Coordinating Action on Small Arms. These include the International Small Arms Control Standard, which is developing “modules” on gun control to serve as “model legislation” for signatory countries of the treaty. The most relevant of these documents is “National Controls Over the Access to Civilians of Small Arms and Light Weapons”, which again, lays out in detail how governments should restrict civilian access to firearms and ammunition.

While the left dismisses concerns over the UN Arms Control Treaty as “much ado about nothing”, many on the right simply don’t trust the Team Obama – let alone, the UN. Case in point: Obama’s recent nomination of Samantha Power as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Power, who refers to herself as a “humanitarian hawk,” is a staunch opponent of what she sees as the (evil) U.S. empire. She despises American power. As a result, as is the case with Barack Obama (as evidenced by his announcement this week that he was once again ceding authority to the UN to “urgently investigate” Syria’s clear use of chemical weapons), Power is seen by conservatives as someone who will defer to the United Nations as the ultimate arbiter – rather than the U.S. government. This, of course, could become problematic for America’s gun owners should a push be made by the UN to implement its treaty in the United States.

While we have no way of knowing when and/or if the UN Arms Treaty will have an impact on America’s lawful gun owners, we do know this: Barack Obama and the left are determined to impose restrictive gun-control legislation here and now. Which brings us back to the headline – and discrimination against Pitt Bulls.

Friday, fresh off a week of grueling golf on Martha’s Vineyard and a two-day bus trip to college campuses to hang out with fawning students, Barack Obama issued an official statement on the White House website in opposition to discrimination against Pitt Bulls. (Yeah, I know; you can’t make this stuff up.)

Here is that statement:

In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds.

The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by breed regulations. When their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.

For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation – which they call inappropriate. As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.

Not a bad argument, right? Especially when the logic is applied to gun rights. Let’s dissect it:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislationresearch shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. All things considered, breed-specific legislation is a bad idea.”

Research also shows that gun-specific bans are ineffective as well, Mr. President. Therefore, “all things considered,” gun-specific legislation is a bad idea as well.

“The CDC looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people.”

The exact same argument is applicable against a ban on “assault rifles” – a misnomer attached to AR-15s and similar semi-automatic weapons by low-information anti-gun fanatics. (Assault weapons are fully-automatic firearms and are already illegal for civilians.) Gun homicides committed with semi-automatic rifles represent a fraction of all gun crimes in the United States.

“[T]he types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by breed regulations. When their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.”

Exactly, Mr. President. And guess what? The types of people who seek to exploit gun violence aren’t deterred by regulations and gun laws either. In fact, when communities – such as your hometown of Chicago – establish bans on guns (Chicago has among the most stringent gun laws in the country), the gangs and drug thugs simply “seek out” unregulated (illegal) guns. As for your “simple fact”, any type of gun can become dangerous when its intentionally or unintentionally used in an aggressive manner as well.

For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislationwhich they call inappropriate.”

For those very same reasons, Mr. President, the NRA – along with tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners across America – recommends against gun-specific legislation as well.

The logic, when applied to guns rights, falls on deaf ears on the left. As a result, it is up to individual gun owners an proponents of the Second Amendment to stay informed, remain vigilant – and speak out whenever possible.

From the United Nations to Barack Obama to left-wingers like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, they’re after our guns. It’s up to us not to let them have them.

Enjoy This Article? Share It! Facebook2097Twitter19Reddit25Pinterest0StumbleUpon0LinkedIn0Google+1

8 comments for “Obama to America: We’re Taking Your Guns, But Leave The Pit-bulls Alone

  1. David R
    August 26, 2013 at 7:10 am

    I see a new 1776 is my answer. And any bullcrap signed tot he UN? null and void! I am an American, I bow and abide by NO ONES Laws but the US Constitution! All unconstitutional laws are nuill and void and we will not abide by them ever! Congress are not our rulers. We the people by the people for the people. They are OUR EMPLOYEES in short term : OUR representatives. For them to think we are going to hand over our rights is as funny as thinking blacks will sit in the back of the bus and go back to slavery. Not going to happen! We live here, this is OUR home, OUR Country!

  2. August 26, 2013 at 7:00 am

    Funny how the left want to get rid of guns,but they want every home to have a fighting breed dog.

    http://www.today.com/news/sandy-hook-student-rescue-dog-bond-she-just-feels-safe-6C10984424?gt1=43001

  3. August 26, 2013 at 4:20 am

    Fact BSL WORKS. BSL reduces gang related violence and stops maulings and deaths by pitbulls.. So the facts are Obama is supporting a multibillion dollar organized crime network by saying the can’t do any thing about the overpopulation of pitbulls that wealthy dog fighters have achieved to hide their sadistic sport. So is Obama going to say that we can’t do anything about drugs either so we should just give up because some types will find other drugs? So we should give every kid Meth and say not YES we Can but NO WE CAN’T. Entire countries and numerous cities have proved that BSL Is very effective. Before when dog fighing was legal, no one promoted pitbulls as pets. The dog fighters used their PR campaign to popularize the breed when dog fighting was made illegal as it makes it very difficult of the police to find dog fighters when pitbulls are in every nook and cranny. So Obama’s administration actually believes the propaganda studies that focus on BITES, not maulings? He ignores the citizens that are losing a body part every 4 days now in the USA and he ignores the fact that BLS reduces the costs of animal control over time and is more humane as it ends the breed/kill cycle. Obama also ignore the tax burdens placed on JOE TAX Payer when they have to pay higher taxes for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as less than 2 percent of the pitbull victims recover damages from the owners of the pitbull. If the Obama administration is making other serious decisions based on the internet petitions of other special interest groups that respresent the MINORITY Of Americans, what else is he getting wrong. By the way, Obama you slogan was YES WE CAN not no we can’t. WE CAN have BSL like they do in Miami Dade and parts of Canada with great success. Visit the Walk for Victims of Pitbulls in Texas this year Obama. Look into the faces of families that have lost children to pitbulls .. you are IGNORING them. ALL VICTIMS need to be acknowledged.

  4. eff
    August 25, 2013 at 12:28 am

    If you want my weapons, then you get all the criminals and wanna be criminals form them and they no longer have them or to obtain them, tI would consider giving some up, keeping the rest to protect me from tyrannical Government.

  5. August 24, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    In the last 90 days the state of Kentucky purchased 632,000 firearms. In the last 3 years Kentucky citizens purchased 7 million… Now, who and what army is going to take them? Molon labe…

  6. thepatriot
    August 24, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    pffft, yeah, good luck with that…

  7. August 24, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Similar logic could be applied to the war on drugs.

  8. August 24, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    The Like button for FB does not share the article on my wall – not an option – can you add a button that allows this article to be shared on FB walls? EXCELLENT ARTICLE.

Leave a Reply

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