Obama Asks for $1.1 Billion for Gun Control

Yup, you read that right! Our ever-so-economical president wants $1.1 BILLION to protect Americans from gun violence. $182 million of Obama’s request is to support the “Now Is The Time” gun safety initiative, which includes:


Let’s take a closer look at these so-called “gun safety initiatives”. First, background checks are already required for any legal purchase of a firearm. This isn’t how criminals are getting a hold of guns. It’s people like Leland Yee who are illegally trafficking guns into the country and placing them into the hands of very bad people. This will happen regardless of what our background check requirements are. Do you think Senator Yee and ‘Shrimp Boy’ performed background checks on any of the Muslim rebels they so willingly armed?

Passing a stronger ban on assault weapons. Look, I’ve already done an article on how Obama, Feinstein, and other anti-gun advocates are misusing terms in order to scare uniformed American citizens into supporting their agenda. He wants to pass stronger bans on guns in general and will do so by manipulating you into thinking a modern day sporting rifle is a military weapon. Which in turn makes a legal gun an ‘assault weapon’.

Banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. I also mentioned this briefly in my post about misuse of guns terms, and I will mention it again. Limiting the amount of rounds a magazine can hold WILL NOT prevent or stop gun violence. Statistics say that criminals on average only fire about 4 rounds, which is well under the 10 rounds held in a supposed ‘dangerous’ magazine. Not to mention, PoliceOne did a survey in which 96% said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce crime. And last but not least, just because you have a limit on the amount of rounds your magazine can carry, doesn’t mean a criminal won’t have another fully loaded magazine on his/her person. An experienced shooter can unload and reload like it’s second nature.

Get “armor-piercing bullets off the streets”. Oh how I love this one. What exactly is an ‘armor-piercing bullet’? Where can I buy them? If I go to a store and ask for a box of armor-piercing bullets, will the counter clerk know exactly what I’m talking about? Not really, because there is no such thing. It is yet another term that Obama uses to scare you along with his favorite phrase “police are being out-gunned on the streets”. Which I also showed to my readers is not true in previous posts. Basically what Obama is wanting to “get off the streets” are regular bullets. You know, bullets that actually have more than 100 grains of powder and not the rinky-dink ones you use to practice at a shooting range. So not only is he going after guns, he is going after ammunition.

Giving law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. Ok, like what Mr. Obama? Another $382.1 million has been requested by the Department of Justice, $2 million of which will be for Smart Gun technology grants. Did you know that there have been recommendations for police officers to have access to Smart Guns owned by citizens? Yes that means that your little chip/bracelet/fingerprints can be overtaken by a band that any law-enforcement official can wear. They also would like to put GPS tracking devices in each Smart Gun. Now why would a gun need a tracking device? Could it be because the government wants to know exactly who owns a gun and where it is located so that they can confiscate at any given moment?

End the freeze on gun violence research. Seriously? End what freeze? You can do research any time you want to. All of the data, statistics, polls, and crime ratings are all there. It just doesn’t match up with his claims against guns, therefore he wants to make uniformed people believe that any of the research that has been released is invalid since apparently there is a freeze on the real research. Give me a break.

Make our schools safer. Ok fine. I’m all for my future children going to a safe school, but his definition of safe and mine are not the same. Being from Texas, I have heard all of the stories about Charles Whitman shooting from the clock tower at the University of Texas in 1966. Did you know that it wasn’t just police officers who fired back? Other armed citizens, both students of UT and locals around the area at the time opened fire. A couple of these citizens even went with the officers into the tower to get to Whitman. With the extra help from these armed citizens, lives of students, faculty, and even police officers were put at a lesser risk. Because of the return fire from multiple directions, Whitman was forced to hide behind a wall to avoid shots which in turn prevented him from having good aim to harm any other people.Taking guns away and providing counseling instead is not going to help make schools any safer.

Lastly, of course he has to enter ObamaCare into his anti-gun plan. Don’t even get me started on that one.

To wrap up my post, why are we going to spend money we don’t have? Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt, yet he wants to spend another billion to take away our Constitutional right? How about we use that money to REMOVE laws that infringe on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms instead and be done with it.

12 thoughts on “Obama Asks for $1.1 Billion for Gun Control

  1. Really good article, Tina, and while you make complete sense, Obama doesn’t. But you have to look at it from his point of view… incremental steps toward a banning (and confiscation) of all guns. That’s why his efforts to implement everything you mentioned above must be fought tooth and nail.

    • Thank you! I really don’t understand how people can listen to the man talk and not hear complete nonsense in every word that comes out of his mouth. It really upsets me to know that so many people fall for everything he says and have no idea that they are being manipulated into believing in his agenda. We just all need to stand up and start informing people who aren’t already.

  2. You’d oppose Obama’s stance regardless of whatever form of gun control he wanted to implement, simply because you hold your right to own a gun above all logical thought.

    You moan about American debt and money being put to firearms education, child safety and social reform yet fail to realize a monumental proportion of your debt is because of that violence and because of weapons. Your country spends a higher percentage of its GDP on weapons purchasing for both civil-focused homeland order-keeping and international operations than mine does on the entire National Health Service and State Pensions Scheme combined, more than the next ten highest spending militarized countries do on military purchases together, more than all of Europe and the Middle East spend on weapons. It is an astronomical financial outlay and it is leveraged against the everyday businessperson – all so your country can continue a war that the UN Council, the same council who called Hitler’s war an unjust war, called an unjust war. A war where NATO have killed more innocents than the dictator your government professed to rescue them from.

    Guns and weapons are by and large, the most unnecessary reason for the colossal debts you are so annoyed about. Talk about irony.

    Who suffers for that? Well, plenty of people, but most importantly your children, as educational standards plummet. It’s no coincidence that your output of academic specialists dwindles as your debt increases. Kids’ schools are just one group of establishments that suffer budget cuts and financial difficulty under debt crisis and the result is growing poverty, social unrest and a rise in violent crimes.

    You obviously cannot see the cycle there, but Mr Obama does.

    Your answer is to keep Americans killing each other by rejecting any proposals to alleviate gun crime, not regarding the senseless killings by firearm in the US, the numbers of which sit three times higher per capita than every killing in the UK combined. “No”, you say, “let’s just perpetuate intemperate notions and irresponsible weapons possession in our violent American society” – and trust me, America IS violent, moreso statistically than every other developed nation on Earth.

    Your mindset – freedom without true responsibility – is the reason your country is looked down upon by so much of the world, by people who understand that knowledge is a greater force than force itself. The issue of violence cannot adequately be solved by counter violence, thus education is a more worthy spend than war.

    Teaching young people, your next generation – the future of your country and of its standing with the rest of the planet, whether that be respected as you once were or hated as you now are – about the danger of guns is paramount to reducing their negative impact in your society. To stigmatize a weapon that can fire a projectile at mind-bending speeds and shatter a human cranium, tear through the brain tissue and expulse grey matter and blood into the atmosphere is a wise move.

    Your state’s murder by firearm rate alone is astonishing, your country’s current genocides disgusting and your military weapons spend ridiculous, so I applaud Mr Obama for his efforts to both reduce your military presence in other countries, dwindle your war-debts and stigmatize your brand of cavalier, carefree attitude towards firearms.

    • Before I get started, I want to point out that I do not oppose Obama’s stance solely because I have a right to own a gun and I most certainly do not throw out logic in order to try and support my own stance. I oppose Obama’s stance because it is unlawful, unjust, and stricter gun laws would harm our country rather than benefit it.

      First, I agree the US is overspending on defense. In fact, much of the US military spending can hardly even be called defense, it’s more like offense in some cases, but that has absolutely 0 to do with the 2nd amendment or my personal right to bare arms in protection of myself and family. Military defense is separate from personal defense and really has nothing to do with the gun laws Obama wants to implement. Last time I checked, Obama never said anything about disarming our military. He wants to disarm the citizens instead. Obama is also not trying to reduce our interventionism overseas. He’s full of lies and rhetoric, that’s it. His record is one of not only continuing but increasing violence overseas, including becoming the Drone King.

      Next, when I buy guns it has nothing to do with the national debt. If anything, my personal purchase of weapons improves the economy and acts to reduce national debt.

      Also, the second amendment has nothing to do with education. The only possible connection is that schools are often turned into gun free zones, putting children’s safety at risk. We need more guns in schools, if anything. Also, teaching children proper gun safety to begin with would be an excellent use of our country’s education system. For example, middle school students in Colorado went on a field trip to a gun range to learn about proper handling and shooting. I am all for that. I actually think the US department of education should be abolished and education policy should be handled at the state level or even possibly a more local level, but putting that aside, education spending and defense spending are not related. The US budget is rarely passed these days because of Harry Reid and the financially illiterate Democrat party, but if they were to pass a budget it would not be a zero-sum pie. That is to say, if defense spending is increased it does not come at the cost of other kinds of spending. That’s not how government spending works. They would raise education spending and military spending both – and then simply add it to the debt. You note yourself that the debt is growing, which proves that government spending is not a 0 sum game.

      “The numbers of which sit three times higher per capita than every killing in the UK combined”
      o COMPLETELY not true. Per capita? As in, the average American kills more than three times the total of the UK? Totally wrong.
      o I think the per capita is about three times the per capita of the UK, but double check.

      Anyone who studies data knows that banning guns reduces gun crime but increases the overall violent crime rate. Guns have a protective deterrent effect, which is foregone when guns are banned. That’s why the UK violent crime rate is higher, and why gun free zones are so dangerous. Take Washington DC for example. We have the strictest gun laws in our entire country and yet our crime rate is also the highest.

      There is no care-free attitude toward weapons. It is precisely due to the seriousness of personal safety that I encourage ownership of weapons.

  3. ‘Per capita’ means per 100,000 people. I don’t know where you get your information, but the US overall has far more murders per capita than the UK, three times as many homicides by firearm per capita as the UK has total murders, your violent crime rate per capita is almost double that of the UK, your stabbings and sharp instrument related murders are almost exactly double that of the UK per capita and your rape rate is one of the highest per capita on Earth. Your violent crime rates, per 100,000 people, overshadow the UK in almost every respect.

    The FBI statistics for your country compared to the gov.uk statistics for mine show this.

    The UK, by and large, is also the most densely populated nation in Europe, and much more so than the US, yet the violent crime and homicide rates are so much less. This is simply a painted image of how violent America is compared to another developed nation.

    It is a cold, hard fact that the vast, vast majority of your murders are by firearm, and because so many people own firearms in the US, whereas few do in the UK, murder is a much easier task to accomplish. Your murder rate by firearm is, now read this again, three times, per 100,000 people, what the TOTAL murder rate in the UK is.

    That is shocking.

    About debt, let me expand.

    Military defense spending does not only take into account the colossal amount of money spent for your wars, it takes into account your escalating crime rates at home. Militarization in the US must be sufficient to counteract any potential homeland security threats, one of which is that there are millions of people in your country who own deadly firearms. Thus, your taxes inherently pay for your country to buy weapons and give salaries to soldiers who would defend the country in the event of any uprisings. That money, although it may be simply added to the proverbial government credit card as you say, ultimately comes out of your pocket.

    Who do you think the government tax in order to pay these national debts? They must get money from somewhere other than from debt itself, thus the higher the military spend, the more the debt increases. Governments must balance books like companies, and when your debt becomes catastrophic as it is, your taxes must pay towards balancing the sheets. In paying debts, your taxes are not put towards things you need, like heightened educational standards. Now, your government may borrow more money to cover the educational deficit, but such a move would be counterproductive to actually alleviating the colossal debts. Hence education, among other things, will generally suffer as debt is paid off.

    In efforts to reduce your country’s war debts, Bush cut educational funding to some degree, which Obama is now counteracting by placing huge sums of money into your educational system and cutting your military budgets, something many conservatives keep whinging about. That reverse is a profound step. Cutting war funding and raising educational standards at home.

    In turn, with a new generation being taught differently than their elders – that guns are wrong – and in seeing their government dwindle their war efforts in other nations, these children may yet grow up to see how malicious and dangerous a gun is, and how horrible and needless is war.

    There’s more going on than just facts and figures.

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that American citizens are becoming more aggressive in general, as shown by crime rates, as war rages and propaganda inflames. To be at war, to be part of war culture, is to see bombs and blasts, news of horror and to come under international scrutiny. Bush has instilled fear and obsession in Americans. A generation of Americans have grown up in a murder-obsessive culture and Obama realizes such a culture needs to be tackled at its root, not at its symptoms.

    Your naval presence, to give an idea of how obsessive Bush was, around your own waters, is about eight times (relatively) to that of the so oft-labelled ‘over-the-top’ Russia. That money, for that presence, which in my opinion is completely unnecessary, burdens you, as a tax payer and citizen of an in-debt nation.

    So, as you said, military spending does not necessarily come directly at the cost of other spending, and that is not what I said either. I said an astronomical proportion of your debt is military, and in efforts to reduce debt, your government, and almost any government, will look for other areas to cut spending. Education is one of those areas.

    You might not see the purchase of a gun as an issue, nor see any relations in much of what I’m saying, but the simple purchase of a gun, in enough numbers, could have a massive effect.

    When you buy a gun, darling, you contribute to gun culture, gun ownership and the need for your government to build defenses in your armed nation, by your pocket. You contribute to the ideology that says the right to own guns is to be pursuant to a totally militant culture, where every person owns a deadly weapon, where staff in schools are armed and where children fire bullets.

    You seem to have this idea that counter-violence and preemptive deterrents are alleviating to violence and are means to real safety, but your statistics, and those of Earth show otherwise. Bush’s preemptive strikes did not reduce violence nor deter, they resulted in millions of deaths, and the analogy fits at home, too. When more people own guns, can you guess what happens?

    That’s right, more people get shot.

    • Ok, for starters, the fact that you don’t know the meaning of the very first word in your sentence makes me doubt that you know anything about what you’re saying in your comment. PER CAPITA does not mean per 100,000 people. Saying that the crime rate in the US is 3 times per capita than the UK is saying that our crime rate is 3 times the UK’s population. If that statement were true, taking in account the populations of both countries, you are saying that US death by firearm is 189 million people, which is entirely false. Now, if you want to say that the US crime rate is 3 times per 100,000 people higher than that of the UK, than that is a completely different statement. Might I add that we also have 314 million people in the US whereas the UK has 63 million. That’s nearly 5 times larger and you honestly want to make a comparison in the amount of crimes we have here? Anyways, just in case you decide to still misuse ‘per capita’, here you go:
      So to conclude this section, per capita and per 100,000 people are VERY different.
      Next, I never said that America isn’t and won’t continue to be a violent country. Which is precisely why I feel the need to protect myself as well as my family. Look at the cities in America with the highest crime rates. Don’t you notice the coloration between crime rate and gun laws? I live only a few short minutes away from DC and Maryland which have some of the STRICTEST gun laws in our entire country. Yet my state has a much lower crime rate. Why? Because my state allows open carry and theirs do not. My state encourages gun safety, education, and ownership while theirs either discourages or prohibits it. Look at deaths or injuries in this country that our gun-related and think about the cause. You have rapists/assault/robbers/gangs who have access to guns regardless of what ridiculous laws Obama wants to pass. Then you have accidents. Which if people were properly educated on gun handling and safety, far less accidents would happen. Lastly, you have self-defense. What defense do you have if your house is broken into and you’re violently attacked? Or do you just not think that happens in real life?
      “Which Obama is now counteracting by placing huge sums of money into your educational system and cutting your military budgets, something many conservatives keep whinging about”.
      By placing ‘huge sums of money into our educations system’, you are talking about Common Core. So many state boards of education have rushed into adopting these educational standards without thinking about the outcomes or leaving any room for input. Not to mention, why is the Obama Administration stepping into what should be state jurisdiction? Even the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has been warned by his advisors that his support and Obama’s is actually dragging down the poll numbers for the Common Core so the best way to help them is to back off. Also, the U.S. Department of Education is about to forego a lawsuit for illegally interfering in curriculum and instruction by supporting the Common Core, so Duncan must pretend he had nothing to do with their swift adoption by 45 states. His lure of $4.3 billion was just a coincidence.
      I also would like to ask you if YOU PERSONALLY have read any of the literature that is provided in schools that have already adopted Common Core. It is filled with a bunch of biased, liberal falsities. Do I want my future children to be exposed to that? No thanks. If my child wants to grow up and have a different opinion than me, that is fine but I would rather it be THEIR CHOICE instead of having it distilled into their brains through a corrupt education system. Did you know that upon the creation of CCSS, they did not test these standards in REAL classrooms on REAL students and REAL teachers? How can anyone say that Common Core is going to benefit our children if proper studies weren’t conducted?
      Education is an important issue, but it’s also important that we focus at the local, state, and federal level on policies that can make a positive difference for children.
      “In turn, with a new generation being taught differently than their elders – that guns are wrong – and in seeing their government dwindle their war efforts in other nations, these children may yet grow up to see how malicious and dangerous a gun is, and how horrible and needless is war.”
      Guns are not bad. PEOPLE ARE BAD. Horrible people choose to use a firearm in dangerous ways. That DOES NOT mean ALL people choose to use their firearm in dangerous ways. Taking a defense weapon away from those who are not abusing it will not take away the violence problem this country is facing. Statistics and research findings actually show it will make it worse. Teaching our children otherwise only makes them fear defending themselves and makes them more dependent on government to intervene. This is a problem. Why? Because what is the government going to do when a criminal breaks into your home and threatens your life? Is the Obama Administration going to bust down the door and tell them guns are bad and they should stop? No! Are the police going to arrive in the snap of a finger and save the day? No! Average police response time in this country is minutes when it only takes a matter of seconds for someone to physically harm you.

      Finally, let me point out that your last statement is false as well.
      When more people own guns, that does not mean that more people get shot. It is when more CRIMINALS own guns that more people will suffer from gun violence. As I said before, making guns illegal in this country will not prevent criminals from illegally owning them. You have drug lords, gangs, and corrupt Senators like Leland Yee who traffic guns. Do you think they would just stop doing that because Obama bans guns? It’s already illegal to do what they’re doing and they do it anyway! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the law-abiding gun owners that Obama wants to disarm are not the problem when it comes to America’s gun-related crime.

  4. I meant per 100,000, my head is fried with this debate, the point was it is irrelevant to national population size anyway. In relative terms, the US murder by firearm rate is 3 times that of the UK total murder rate, per 100,000 people. It’s relative. It doesn’t matter what size your population is, the statistic is per 100,000 people. Besides, the UK is actually MORE densely populated than the US is. More people live in a smaller area.

    I live in Belfast, NI, ten or fifteen years ago one of the most crazy places on the planet, far, far worse than DC has ever been. I own several bats, and a sword. My house has never been robbed. I lock my doors at night, shut my gate and have a dog. But you act like everyone’s house gets broken into. It simply doesn’t.

    Very few firearm murders are home invasions. They are mostly gangs, accidents, police shooting people who are pointing firearms in public. Home invasion killings by firearm are the rarity. You’ll see most murders by firearm could be prevented by cutting the access to guns. And sure, knife stabbings may go up, but never to the levels that firearm murders were at. Why? Because firearm murder is quick and easy, can be done at distance, is simply a pull of a trigger. It’s impersonal, it’s effective. Knifing someone isn’t like that.

    People who commit robberies or home invasions in this country are rarely, almost never ever armed with a gun, because the government have made guns in NI such an impossible thing to procure. If a criminal comes in my house, a snooker cue or a bat have a far longer reach than anything they’ll carry. Without guns, murder becomes much more difficult to accomplish, and much more difficult to get away with. Criminals have to get up close and personal to do anything.

    Whether it’s criminals owning guns that do the most damage where you are or not, potential shooters can legally get hold of a gun in the US. Here, people cannot. Here, the police seize fireams and automatic weapons continually and prosecute those who own them. Here, guns carry about 5-10 years in prison.

    In NI and Wales at least, we don’t have an issue with guns, and in fact, we don’t really have a bad issue with murder at all in NI anymore. The new generation in NI aren’t shy about self defence, but since attackers never have guns because of monumentally strict laws, defenders don’t need them either. Police in England don’t even usually carry firearms. NI is the only part of the UK where police usually carry guns because of its history and issues with paramilitaries throughout The Troubles.

    We can also thank many years of education reform and national curriculum changes for better living standards, lower poverty rates, higher quality of life, a more peaceful environment, proper provisions for poor families, free prescriptions and healthcare for every citizen, a universal state benefits system, all of which contribute to alleviating social tensions, promoting intercultural attitudes, and reducing violence.

    You need to realize that making guns a stigma for future generations makes it a stigma for your kids and for potential criminals alike. Banning guns makes them difficult to get a hold of, it makes murder more difficult and it makes jail terms longer for offenders.

    Counter violence, via more people buying guns, is only a temporary solution, and only means the attacker dies instead of the attacked. But these are long term deterrents that work, that alleviate murder rates all in all and instill new perspectives in the young.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s