Thread: Obama Lies & Claims Fully Automatic Weapon Was Used At Sandy Hook - Video

6 Hours Ago by Tim Brown

Obama Lies & Claims Fully Automatic Weapon Was Used At Sandy Hook

50 Comments
Video at the page link:

During a speech at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) fundraiser on Wednesday Barack Obama openly lied, not that most things coming out of his mouth aren’t lies, in order to push his political agenda. He pushed for more gun control in the same place he made his now infamous “bitter clingers” speech, and told a major whopper in declaring that the AR-15 alleged to have been used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shootings was a fully automatic weapon. The reality, of course, is that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and a pair of handguns. Yes, it was clearly a lie, since the speech was written out before hand and viewed on his teleprompter.

“Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

While fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930′s, in clear violation of the Second Amendment, one would think that there would be a correction from the administration as though Obama had misspoke. The reality is, he didn’t. He knew exactly what he was doing and is clearly out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook to get a reaction. After all, for Alinsky, the means justify the ends, even if it means lying.

Additionally, Obama is not only constrained by the Constitution, but he is restrained by it. The Constitution attaches iron fetters, as it were, to him and all elected officials. Thus, it gives no authority for them to conduct background checks or tell people what kinds of weapons they can or cannot own.

He also said, “”The opponents of some of these common sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed – nothing to do with the facts – but feeds into this suspicion about government.”

“You hear some of these quotes: I need a gun to protect myself from the government,” he added. “We can’t do background checks because the government’s gonna come take my guns away.”
“The government’s us,” Obama countered. “These officials are elected by you. They are constrained as I am constrained, by a system that our founders put in place.”

Apparently he missed the part where there is a governing document and that he is bound to it and so are the states since they agreed to it. I don’t see him making this kind of argument for say, immigration, do you? No, he happily tip-toes through the tulips on that issue. I don’t see him making that argument when it comes to marriage, do you?

Though I think the Federal government has no business in marriage, he picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. It’s because he is lawless. The Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it clearly says and so he mocks the Second Amendment and those who believe in keeping and bearing arms. Well Obama, the Founders did put the system into place and though they clearly wrote out that the keeping and bearing of arms is “I need a gun to protect myself from the government” and that it “shall not be infringed,” you and your thugs continue to try to infringe upon it every chance you get.

Perhaps James Madison would point out Obama’s error here, if only he and the rest of the Socialists who support him would listen.

From Federalist 46, Madison writes:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Of course Obama and those who side with him claim they are not after our guns, but they have a history of being anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment with their words and with their actions. However, keep in mind that Alinsky was one that exhorted radicals to patience. Whatever it takes to achieve the goal is permissible as long as you attain the goal and in this case Obama and the anti-gun crowd continue to keep coming back for more. We must not weary of the fight, for the fight for liberty is never finished.



Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/ob...#ixzz2PYS1NwoM

Obama Blames Sandy Hook on “Fully Automatic” Weapon

by THE BLOG on APRIL 4, 2013

… which is simply untrue.

Last night at a San Francisco fundraiser President Obama claimed that the Sandy Hook shooter used a “fully automatic weapon” on his victims.

The POTUS said:

“Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”

Does Obama think America is that unintelligent? Debunking this bold misinformation is as easy as a Google search.

Lanza had in his possession an AR-15 Bushmaster — a semi-automatic — and two semi-automatic pistols. He also had a shotgun in his car.

According to prosecutor Stephen J. Sedensky III, Lanza kill “all 26 victims” with the Bushmaster — a .223-caliber rifle.

Unless Obama forgot what was reported, he is purposefully lying because he knows that so many Americans don’t care to investigate what they hear. More drumming for gun-control… but wait, Title II weapons are already illegal.

Fail.

Tell Congress to Reject ALL Gun-Control Legislation! Blast Faxes and Sign the Petition.

Tagged as: firearms, know your guns, obama fail, obama gaff, POTUS, sandy hook,semiautomatics

http://www.conservativeactionalerts....omatic-weapon/