Can any of you conservatives provide any evidence that Obama wants to take your guns away?

I am a libertarian, and I completely agree with this. The gun lobby is making background checks seem like government overreach. I certainly don't want the right to own firearms, and use them for defence and harmless practice revoked, but it seems perfectly reasonable for the government to provide basic restrictions that prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from owning or using firearms. However, the NRA's great concern is that the need for guns as self-protection will decrease with fewer violent offenders using guns, and thus also firearm sales, which hurts the industry.

I do, however, dispute your "additional details" comparison. If the car is less safe for the driver of that car, then the government may classify that car model as unsafe, but it is the driver's responsibility to not use the car, and it would be government overreach for it tell a company it can no longer produce a certain car type when this is in fact the job of the consumer.

you won't be able to actual take some information and prepare them from one us of a to a unique. perhaps we do have a number of the most expensive healthcare, we actually have between the utmost criteria of residing, a number of the utmost wages, a number of the most healthful human beings. We innovate, advance and manufacture the most recent, maximum effectual drugs. There does no longer be maximum AIDS vaccines as an example if no longer for the US healthcare device. Japan, even as having a lot less firearm deaths than the US, has a a approaches larger suicide fee. a approaches extra human beings there die by utilizing prepare than the US yet they have a approaches fewer miles of song. to assert taking away firearms ought to scale again or get rid of the debt is a stretch even for gun-grabbers. lets decrease the debt a lot extra actual and under no circumstances violate our Constitutional rights by utilizing taking away the present corrupt, dishonest Congress.

There isn't any. Although numerous progressives have come out and stated that is in fact what they want, they are not and do not speak for the president. It is the baby step philosophy, A slow weening process over time that we are worried about. From the 70's on, both sides have been expanding the governments powers over the individual.

Uh, banning certain types of guns and magazines takes them away from us. It means we can no longer purchase them.

That's close enough!

@Benjamin - Tell me, what do you think the government is going to do with that background check data of who bought what guns and where they live?

It's going into a government database, right? That's called gun registration, and boy won't it be nice and easy for the government to print out that list when they decide it's time to confiscate guns!

The problem has never been about the background check itself. It's always been about what happens to that data, and also about reducing the onus on law abiding gun owners, who will be the ones complying with the background checks.

In California, for private party sales, both buyer and seller must go to a licensed gun dealer, and pay $40 to transfer a gun. $15 for the state and $25 for the dealer.

You think criminals are going to do that? The onus is entirely on the law abiding like myself.

Ok, so, we are all in agreement, then? President Obama has NEVER proposed ANY legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment, correct? He has never once said, "I would like to ban guns in America," Ok, good, then I can tell them that the smarter conservatives agree that they are putting words into the President's mouth, again.

Just because the Dems failed at it. Doesn't mean they don't want to take Americans guns away. We do have a 2nd Amendment.

Marriage, between a man and woman, should clearly be seen as the same. The Bill of Rights are all NATURAL RIGHTS. Read up on John Locke and his influence on the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

Homosexuality goes against natural law.

Democrats will try to let homosexuals force their version of the word marriage on the rest of American....

Your party should have LESS of a chance letting that happen then destroying the 2nd Amendment.

Come on Steve I know he doesn't this is one of the only things I do agree with him on. Why in the Heck should a person have a War style machine gun with multiple clips? I think People should own guns but weapons of mass destruction. In other words 9mm are OK and Hunting rifles are ok.

Refer to your own question.

"Banning certain models of guns". <--- That's why I think Obama wants to take guns away.

"Banning large clips" <----- That's why I think Obama wants to take guns away.

Response: You seem to have a very Clinton-esque style of interpreting "taking guns away". I.E. "No, we don't want to take anything away. We just want to make sure you can't replace any parts on your gun. We just want you to pay taxes to retain the right to keep your prohibited gun. We just want you to never be able to transfer your gun or hand it down to your kids. If somehow you jump through all our hoops and still have your gun we'll just wait till you die and then collect your gun." But noooooooooo.... it's absurd to interpret any of this as thinking we have an agenda to take your gun. Who me?

I think banning certain models of guns counts in this case.

Can any of you provide any evidence Obama said he would do any of that, before he was elected?