Presidential debate and gun control…….


Well, I just finished watching the 2nd Presidential Debate and although I do not hear the lamestream media discussing it -Obama made a very honest and foretelling statement. For me – it was the most surprising admission of the night.


President Obama said the following:

“…….weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.”



Now – I know many of you have had long time beliefs that if Obama is reelected that gun control will be a wide open topic and I share that belief. Performing my own research several months ago after several readers took me to task stating that Obama would institute  additional gun control measures upon reelection, I found that indeed, I could not find any information which pointed to a direct policy or action which showed Obama’s anti-gun beliefs. Maybe I needed to look harder.


So, President Obama has made it clear that he would like another Assault Weapons ban instituted. To what extent this new ban would diminish the available firearm supply in this country is not known. The potential is unnerving and flat out scares me. COuld ammunition come under control? All semi-automatic rifles? Any pistol capable of accepting a high capacity magazine? Who knows?


Notice that he mention that the violence in Chicago is NOT a result of assault weapons – that we must “at other sources of the violence”. Other than what? Other than assault weapons? Cheap pistols? Sounds like nothing is off the table to me.


The statement highlighted above should clear up any confusion regarding Obama’s intent. If he is reelected he has every intention to disarm law-abiding citizens in some manner.


You should be concerned. I have little doubt that gun sales – after this clear anti-gun admission –  will skyrocket to new record levels.


Take care all – 


20 survival items ebook cover

Like what you read?

Then you're gonna love my free PDF, 20 common survival items, 20 uncommon survival uses for each. That's 400 total uses for these innocent little items!

Just enter your primary e-mail below to get your link. This will also subscribe you to my newsletter so you stay up-to-date with everything: new articles, ebooks, products and more!

By entering your email, you consent to subscribe to the Modern Survival Online newsletter. We will not spam you.

10 thoughts on “Presidential debate and gun control…….”

  1. I agree. I’m pretty sure this was the first large public forum where the President showed his cards regarding legislative intentions. I was beginning to wonder if the run for RGR and SWHC stock was about to end. Probably not now that we have confirmation of his thoughts. It’s probably a good time to add additional magazines. OR, get really fast at changing them later…

  2. I did not watch the debates. I cannot listen to Obama for more than a few minutes, before I start yelling obscenities. I say this as a Christian Conservative with patriotic values and strong reverence for the bible, the Constitution and our flag. I see Obama as possessing NONE of these beliefs. Anyway, I am glad that you brought up these points. The NRA brings out that the President is deliberately laying off his gun control agenda right now to avoid alienating both Democrats and Independents that own firearms. He has secretly promised Sarah Brady that a second term will bring a renewed effort to restrict our 2ND Amendment rights. I won’t lecture on Obama’s personal efforts in the anti-gun arena. The fact that he chose Eric Holder as Attorney General speaks volumes. The Fast & Furious gun running scandal was designed to fool the American people into believing that our guns were the cause of countless murders within the drug trade. The plan failed when one of our Border Patrol agents, Brian Terry, was killed by one of the guns BAFT SENT TO MEXICO. I truly believe that Obama is a Socialist with a strong desire to “fundamentally change America”. The “Dreams From My Father” are anti-capitalist. He wants to “redistribute the wealth”. The ONLY way to conquer the American people is to disarm them. Liberal, anti-gun politicians will go to any length to accomplish this goal. Lies, deception and back-door tactics are far more effective than attempting to outright ban guns. They will “nickle and dime us” by starting with a concept that people may support, like banning assault rifles. Next will be magazines that hold more than “X” amount of bullets. Then comes shotguns over 5 rounds. Before we know it, the bolt action .22 LR that farmers use for varmint reduction is stored at the Sheriff’s office. I was disillusioned for many years in that I openly admitted that “no civilian needs to own an assault rifle”. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT NOW! As previously mentioned, this is only the first step in total disarmament. Don’t be fooled!

  3. I don’t think politicians actually give a [email protected]#$about gang violence. I think the only value to them is it allows them to hype the anti-gun ideas. It is an absolute fact that the Chicago police know every gang member, where they live, what they drive and where they hang out. Why do they spend more time stopping speeders and other ticketable infractions? The answer is obvious; the tickets have become a tax, a source of income for the government. The gangs; well it’s kind of dangerous to go after them so the police and the politicians prefer to ticket drivers over stopping gang violence. What should happen is every gang member should be arrested every time they can find one and charged with a crime. Either charge them for what they are doing wrong at the time they are arrested or charge them for conspiring in previous crimes committed by their gang. Win or lose at trial do it again an again day in day out. The result would be all the gang members in jail and/or they would move elsewhere. The ONLY reason Chicago (or any city has violent gangs) is because the police don’t want to stop them and the DA doesn’t want to prosecte them. Too much work and it doesn’t bring in money into their budgets.

  4. I too was surprised that it has received so little attention. This, at least in the past, would have been big. Especially with his statement of wanting to bring back the Assault Weapon Ban.

    My suggestion…….if he wins, immediately go to the store and start buying if it isn’t already too late. Remember what happened after he won last time. No available ammo and the firearms were pretty thin too. It might be the time to concentrate on building this area up due to availability and then start building up the other areas a month or so later.

    And this time, there are no “I still have a second term I want to win” holding him back as well as his recent activities of abusing executive orders. Could the next ban be a result of an E.O??

  5. If you ban citizens from owning guns, the law abiding will obey and follow the law…. even if they disagree. The criminals, thugs and mentally deranged will not and the death tolls will only increase. The areas in this country with the freest gun laws are also the areas with the least violence….. that’s based on FBI statistics, not my opinion.

    The growing movement among gun control advocates (and the Obama administration) is to blame gun manufacturers and sellers for gun violence in other countries as a justification to pass much stricter gun laws here. Mexico being their main thrust (even after the Fast & Furious debacle).

    When we look at the facts, the gun control advocates and the Justice Dept’s justifications are beyond weak… they are pathetic….. Now for some inconvenient facts…..

    In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.
    But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
    In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
    So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

    — The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
    — Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
    – South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
    — Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
    — The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
    — Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America’s cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

  6. Before 1998, I had never fired a firearm. Until then, I never understood the importance of self-defense. Since then, I’ve had a very fine education with firearms, including the politics, and I’ve realized that there is a lot that I’ve missed out on, because I came late to this game. A new gun owner today has lost a lot more than I have, and it has only gone in one direction in my state. (Granted, on the national scale, the sunsetting of the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban” has been one little light of restoration of freedom in an otherwise dismal 14 years of firearms experience.)

    Unfortunately, even the most ardent of gun supporters sometimes miss the full implications that gun haters propose. The current resident of the White House has spent years telling us his feelings towards firearms, but only toned down the rhetoric when he considered himself a possibility for the Oval Office, and later for reelection. Before then, however, he’s exhibited the same kinds of disregards for gun owners as other gun haters have. From the article link below, we can witness a number of anti-gun precedents from before he rose to National status.

    His approach through surrogates to demonize gun ownership through the badly bungled “Fast and Furious” program is just a prelude to what his plans are in the lame duck session. His statements during the debate are very telling that he has plans. One side, the AK-47’s, are too big and mean, and the “Saturday Night Specials” are too small and cheap (though many people would rather have a $50 gun than no gun at all when a burglar breaks in). And all of this is without the questions in peoples mind as to if there will be a False Flag operation, the conspiracies about WROL situations and riots, and more. Obama does not consider himself to be subject to the Constitution, which he still believes can be rewritten as he sees fit.

    Pardon me while I sit back and cling to my guns and my religion.

  7. Rourke, a couple of quick points.

    1. Gault and Thunder, et al, applause.

    2. Get a gun, or a few, and train on how to use them well.

    3. Ponder on these. What, exactly, is an “assault” weapon? Can I not “assualt” someone with a single-shot .22, a BB gun, or a butter knife? What is a “high-capacity” magazine? My EDC comes from the factory with a 15rd magazine. That is a “standard capacity” mag for my pistol. Anything less is “neutered”.

    4. Any ban, restriction, or lessening of the 2A is fundamentally wrong. Insert the same language of bans into a discussion of the first amendment and people go beserk. “You can’t stop free speech! That’s against the constitution!” What about “hate speech”? “It’s all protected by the 1st amendment!” But it is OK to ban certain types of guns, ammo, mags, etc. Simply because we don’t NEED more than ten rounds you shouldn’t have THAT mag.

    I have read the second amendment many times and have never seen the words “hunting” or “sporting” anywhere in it.

    Pray, arm yourselves, train, then pray some more.

  8. Great points, DesertRatJak! I have made similar statements for years, more of less that liberals are adamant supporters of the Constitution when they want to burn a flag, or urinate on a religious symbol. But, when we quote our Second Amendment Rights, the Constitution is no longer a revered document. Our forefathers were brilliant in drafting the Bill Of Rights. I feel that they are light years ahead of the politicians of the current times. In many cases, wisdom has been replaced by special interests. Using the logic of those traitors that want to restrict the size of magazine in ANY semi-automatic rifle, I have come to the conclusion that there is 90 bullets in my S&W Governor revolver (6 Winchester PDX .410 GA shells, each with 3 plates and 12 BBs). Of course, this is absurd. But, it points out how ludicrous counting projectiles really is. Historically, these laws restricting firearms rights are always “knee-jerk” reactions to the latest crime wave. There were laws enacted after John Dillenger, Bonnie and Clyde went on their rampages. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was in response to assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. Still more legislation came after the attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life, Waco and some nut out in San Francisco that shot 14 people in a law office. Now, gun control advocates want still more laws, blaming the recent gun rampages. I wonder “At what point will these morons realize that these stupid rules do not prevent real criminals and psychopaths from killing people”?

  9. I have noticed over time that many posts on MSO receive (I’ll leave myself out of this) consistently intelligent, thoughtful and powerfully convincing comments. Rourke’s visitors seem to hold a valuable commodity…. fair minded common sense and the ability to discern reality from wishful thinking can’t be valued high enough in my opinion.


Leave a Reply to Glenn Cancel reply