The Facts don’t Match Palin’s Obama Second Amendment Claims

palin obama1
Sarah Palin doesn't know Obama's Second Amendment record

During her speech in front of the NRA, Sarah Palin threw a little red meat to the crowd by claiming that President Obama wants to take away guns and ammo, but the truth is that Obama presidency has been extremely pro-Second Amendment. Obama has been so pro-gun that the Brady Campaign gave his administration him an F on their annual report card.

Palin went with the standard claim that Obama is coming to get their guns and ammo. According to CBS News she said, “Don’t doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment. It’s the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks.” The problem with this statement is that it is completely untrue.

The first splash of cold water in the face of gun control advocates came when the Obama Administration announced in April 2009 that they would not support reinstating the assault weapons ban. When asked about reinstating the ban at a White House press conference, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the president would — the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books.” (In case you aren’t sure, Gibbs was answering no to the ban).

In January 2010, the Brady Campaign gave Obama’s first year a big fat F on gun control issues. The report said, “Rather than showing leadership by calling for the stronger laws Candidate Obama had professed to support, the White House muzzled cabinet members who called for sensible gun laws. Administration officials parroted NRA slogans to just “enforce the law on the books,” even though there are few such laws and those are riddled with loopholes. It is no wonder that one pro-gun writer remarked that the NRA “should erect a statue of Barack Obama in front of its D.C. headquarters.”

The report was blunt and called Obama a failure on gun control, “On pursuing sensible solutions to the continuing tragedy of gun violence, President Obama’s first year in office has been a failure. He has failed so far to live up to his campaign promises to strengthen federal gun laws and instead has signed legislation to weaken them.” (This certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of president that is out to take away anyone’s guns or ammo).

I would say that Sarah Palin was lying about Obama’s Second Amendment record, but I don’t think that she actually knows the President’s record on the issue. Palin seemed to be working under the assumption that of course Obama would be against the Second Amendment, because he is a black Democrat. This episode is an example of why Palin can never be taken seriously. Facts are strictly optional with Palin.

She is more worried about delivering applause lines than the truth. We all know that in Sarah Land when the truth doesn’t match her story, she simply changes the facts until it does. Palin is the poster child for the intellectual lazy stereotypical Fox News viewer. The ignorant and narrow minded adore her because she is one of them. She is everything a leader and a role model should never be, and every time that she opens her mouth the IQ of our national dialogue drops ten more points.

53 Replies to “The Facts don’t Match Palin’s Obama Second Amendment Claims”

  1. I’m for gun control but it gives me pleasure to realize that palin has been rendered toothless on this issue.

  2. @dani, Well Dani, I am pro-second amendment, but I believe in responsible smart gun ownership. Unlike some radicals, I don’t think that all gun laws are bad.

  3. Lets see, sensible, stronger…. I take sensible.

    I am a gun owner, since I was 16 years old. But this extreme desperation to make sure you can have guns puts us about 500 years behind 12th-century king Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood.

    No wait, it puts Sarah that far behind. Not me.

    Its no wonder the people in Europe laugh at us.

  4. I guess it comes down to you define responsible gun ownership, because I’m not against that but I think people should be screened and by screened I mean no more walk in and buy a gun stores and shows. Mandatory waiting list, too.

  5. @Shiva, I think the point is that this stupid myth that Obama is going to take all our guns is nonsense and needs to be put to bed. The facts don’t agree with Palin at all.

  6. @dani, Any responsible gun owner should agree to those conditions. Isn’t the point to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals and mentally ill?

  7. @dani,

    Personally, I think gun ownership should be similar to car ownership. Just as you have to pass a test to obtain a driver’s license, you should have to pass one to obtain a gun license. Just as you have to show your driver’s license to buy a car and drive it home, you would also have to show your gun license (w/ photo id) to buy a gun and take it home. Gun licenses would be tracked by the state and could be lost for reckless use.

  8. @Shiva,

    Agree. It’s stupid and embarrassing the way these people act like they have to arm themselves against Armageddon. They act like neanderthals.

  9. Unfortunately when Palin speaks, you realize how ridiculous America is becoming because everything that she says is broadcast immediately and consistently until the next ridiculous thing she says and then the awful cycle starts all over again. No one challenges her or bothers to make sure that America gets the facts. Education is needed dramatically in this country. More guns just seem to be asking for more trouble. It’s one of my rare complaints against Obama. The average American has no need for an assault rifle. I wish he would take their guns.

  10. There is a common sense compromise among all of these positions…..I mean even in the “wild west” there were ordinances barring guns being carried within certain town limits…or during certain events. Aren’t we at least as smart as that? All this “open carry” stuff strikes me as a lot of macho play acting (or acting out).

  11. @Vonna Viglione, I agree. I don’t see the point in some of these open carry laws. I think these states should look at tightening their laws in order to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, before they adopt a policy that makes gun ownership more accessible and open.

  12. @F Joy,

    Your expressed desire for civilian disarmament serves to grant legitimacy to exaggerated claims issued by individuals such as Mrs. Palin. Do you truly wish to validate the assertions of those who have predicted the enactment of tyrannical and Unconstitutional prohibitions on civilian firearm ownership based upon entirely unreasonable justifications such as a claimed lack of “need”?

  13. @Vonna Viglione, That firearms were frequently entirely prohibited within western cities in the mid and late 1800s is a common misconception. In fact, in Dodge City — a city frequently referenced by those who hold such a misconception — the carrying of firearms by civilians was prohibited only on the side of town containing brothels and saloons. The carrying of firearms on the other side of town — which was literally at the other side of a railroad track that ran through the town — was not prohibited.

  14. @Trish, A driver’s license is required only for operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. No license is required for the ownership of a motor vehicle, nor is licensing required for operation of motor vehicles exclusively upon private property. As such, your suggestion that proof of license be required for purchase of a firearm is unreasonable; proof of license should be required only for individuals who are carrying a firearm in a usable condition when in public.

    Additionally, driver’s licenses issued by any one state are universally recognized by all other states in the United States of America. If you are being honest in your analogy, then you must be advocating a firearms licensing system that is similarly universally recognized. Consequently, under the system that you propose, the concealed deadly weapons permit issued by the state of Kentucky that I possess should be sufficient to allow me to legally carry a concealed firearm when in the state of California, the state of Illinois, the state of Hawaii, the state of Wisconsin and the state of New York. Do you agree with my assessment?

    Additionally, please identify other Constitutionally protected liberties that you believe should be subject to licensing requirements.

  15. @dani, Please explain the purpose served by a “waiting list”. Demonstrate the actual accomplishment of such a purpose through reference to states where such a “waiting list” is mandated by law.

  16. @Dimensio, I believe Trish is referring to the purchasing of weapons which a licensing requirement would not limit. Plus no one is talking about what you do with the weapons in your own home.

    This has nothing to do with private property or carry permits but more how we purchase our weapons. I am not a criminal. I have nothing to fear. I would gladly abide by any regulations as long as it meant that we keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

    Your arguments about personal property and permits do not relate to the notion of passing a test or licensing. Regulation already falls under the Second Amendment. Hence the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and who do you think has the power to regulate said militia?

  17. @Dimensio, Waiting lists are helpful to more complete background checks to be done. Why can’t you wait a little longer? What are you so damn afraid of? If a little extra time prevents a mass shooting, isn’t it worth the minor inconvenience to you, or are you too selfish to see the big picture? A better background check could have stopped the VA Tech shooter from purchasing weapons so easily. That is what the report on the shooting concluded.Do you really want to enable mass killers, just so you don’t have to wait?

  18. @Dimensio, My point was about assault weapons in particular. When I say I wish Obama would take their guns, it is from watching the CNN news reports of extreme right wing militia groups who have increased heavily in numbers and whose desire is to overturn the government and in some cases even the police force. They collect the guns, and house these collections and have secret meetings in preparation for what? Some of these groups are racists and quite scary. Some have military backgrounds. Since Palin started inciting angry crowds during the 2008 campaign these groups have increased in dramatic numbers across the country. The current gun laws also make it easy for lone wolf domestic and foreign terrorists to take aim at any time in certain areas. The recent Time Square bomber was able to purchase a gun prior to the attempted bomb incident. And on a personal level, when you’ve lost a family member or friends to gun violence, you may develop different views on the subject. Don’t get me wrong, I believe everyone has a right to protect themselves and their loved ones. I also am not against the sport of hunting though I have no interest in it personally. I really do think there should be more control on assault weapons that are used often in gang and drug related crimes. So if Arizona is trying to protect their borders from gang and drug related crimes occurring there, why encourage more with assault type weapons? And in a country with a history of assassinations, why are protest groups like the members of the so called Tea Party, carrying guns as near as they can get to congress and the Whitehouse?

  19. @Vonna Viglione,
    A law of any sort will not stop a criminal from sneaking a gun in. A law abiding, concerned, armed citizen, may keep him from killing someone.

  20. @TK, Again, my point is that I am against assault weapons for the average citizen. I’m not against guns and protection. You’re missing my point. When assault weapons get into the wrong hands it creates war zones. I am for sensible gun control laws.
    No further comment.

  21. @Dimensio,

    So, they didn’t take them into bars, which you can do in some states now.

    Sorry, but it’s insane to mix guns and alcohol and yes, the police in those states have the stories to prove it. Just tune in to TruTV sometime.

  22. @Syd,

    This is a fact. But lucky for her, her followers aren’t into those things and they can’t wait to hand her some more money.

  23. @Dimensio,

    A waiting list is just common sense. Anyone who fights against them must be a far right radical. Time and again we read about the guy who just snapped, walked in, bought a bunch of guns, and killed a bunch of people (or even just one person).

    We make people wait for their driver’s license for goodness sake.

    A reasonable person who really wants a gun for the reason protected by the second amendment will not only pass the test but won’t mind waiting. Unless by reasonable YOU think I mean those nut jobs who believe Obama is coming for their guns and the federal government is evil. THOSE are the people who should NEVER have a gun and the DHS proved that point.

  24. @Dimensio,

    Personally, I could care less if Palin and the idiots who follow her have more or less reason to believe her nonsense. You can’t control what those nut jobs are going to believe- so there is no sense in even taking them into account at all.

    Let them freak out. They are already freaked out. They are already collecting water and scared of the world.

    Reasonable gun laws should never be determined out of fear of what extremists like Palin’s followers will think. Now, if you are suggesting we should be afraid of them going nuts (since several of the mass shooters in the last year were Palin supporters) that is another issue and one which may have legitimacy – but instead of lowering our national discourse to their level because they are nuts, why don’t we elevate the discourse right above their heads?

    I’m just tired of how this country is manipulated by these nut jobs constantly. This isn’t how you make smart, reasonable decisions. You don’t cater to nut jobs.

    Palin is an extremists, a radical, a racist, – she’s everything the DHS warned us about on the right. Her followers must not be too far behind that.

  25. @TK,

    It isn’t criminals who go off and mass shoot people though, is it?

    It’s white, paranoid, Fox-viewing, big government fearing nut jobs who often add beating their wife or girlfriend to the resume, but in this country, that’s OK so he’s not in jail.

    He listens to Glenn Beck and doesn’t realize he’s being played, so one day he snaps – goes down to the local gun store and stocks up and then shoots and kills some innocent police officers or civilians. He usually leaves behind Glenn’s books and some Fox inspired paranoia and three times so far, they’ve found he was a Palin supporter. So yeah, let’s not give these nut jobs easy access.

    and nut jobs are most often not “criminals” — psych tests should be required and since the right loves profiling, why not profile these dudes to see if they are paranoid about the government and investigate them to see just how far right they lean first?

    I mean, it’s ok to infringe on our other Constitutional rights according to these same people. It’s OK to stop brown people in Arizona and ask for their papers so why not stop right wing nut jobs as defined by the dept of homeland sec as the biggest threat facing this country from inside and profile them.

    Don’t give terrorists access to guns – whether they are Christian radicals, Islamic radicals, or far right extremists radicals.

  26. As she babbled on her BS yesterday a 3 yr old in Anchorage Alaska, where “men & women own guns” no license required, the child took the gun off the TV stand and shot himself in the head, dead….

  27. The Caribou Bimbo and facts will never mesh into a coherent statement. She does not use facts, EXCEPT those SHE makes up. All you have to do is a little research and you can see that ANYTHING she says is NOT TRUE, and the cold hard facts PROVES it!! That is the GOP’s plan on ALL of the elections, NEVER tell the truth and always lie to suit your needs. People better wake up to the fact the GOP DOES NOT want to do a damn thing for this country except to bring it down more than they did for the 8 years, when they had the power. The Caribou Bimbo and 90% of ALL republinuts are really sad excuses for humans!!!

  28. @Jason Easley, You have not actually provided demonstration of any benefit of waiting lists. Merely asserting that such a requirement will be beneficial does not demonstrate such benefit.

    Mr. Seung-Hui Cho obtained firearms due to a deficiency in medical records reporting, not due to the absence of a “waiting list”; this deficiency has since been corrected in law. As Mr. Cho purchased firearms significantly in advance of his criminal actions, your suggestion that a “waiting list” would have prevented his criminal actions is of no merit.

  29. @EnglishSaddle, Declaring a position to be “common sense” is inherently an appeal to the “poisoning the well” fallacy. You are attempting to imply that individuals who oppose or who question the imposition of a “waiting list” lack “common sense”, rather than provide actual evidence that a “waiting list” will result in any benefit.

  30. @F Joy, Firearms arbitrarily classified as “assault weapons” are rarely criminally misused. You are therefore endorsing government confiscation of lawfully owned property for no rational purpose. Such advocacy is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational.

  31. @EnglishSaddle, My statement related directly to an endorsement of confiscation of lawfully owned firearms. I stated only that endorsement of such an unreasonable and tyrannical action serves to validate the state concerns of Mrs. Palin. I made no statement regarding “reasonable gun laws”, as F Joy had endorsed only an unreasonable action.

  32. @EnglishSaddle, I am certain, then, that you can demonstrate that states where the carrying of firearms into establishments where alcohol is served for consumption upon the premises experience a significantly higher rate of crime committed by civilians legally permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons than do states where such carrying is prohibited in such establishments. Please do so.

  33. @F Joy, For what reason are you “against” civilians owning an arbitrarily classified set of firearms that are rarely criminally misused? Given that firearms classified as “assault weapons” are rarely criminally misused, what rational justification exists for prohibiting civilian ownership of such firearms? Additionally, why do you dishonestly claim to endorse “sensible gun control laws” while simultaneously endorsing a firearm restriction that is not sensible?

  34. @EnglishSaddle, Mass shooting events are extremely rare, and individuals who engage in such actions typically have exhibited previous behaviours that should have served as evidence of their mental instability.

  35. @Jason Easley, If Trish believes that licensing should be required for mere purchase of a firearm, then Trish’s analogy with driving licenses is dishonest; no license is required prior to acquisition of an automobile.

    “Well regulated”, within the context of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution relates to the militia, not to arms, and is defined as “well functioning”, not “controlled by government interference”. The term does not justify the imposition of licensing requirements.

    Additionally, you have not addressed my inquiry regarding the reciprocity of licenses under the system that Trish has proposed.

  36. Before we go off half cocked so to speak, lets remember that the majority of killings with guns are not done by “criminals”.

    They are done by people who know the person they killed, family members and neighbors either in passion of some type or on purpose.

    As I pointed out in the past, our sordid devotion to guns puts us around 500 years behind the civilized world. We take a law that was meant to allow revolutionary war patriots to keep and carry muskets, and turn it into assault rifles.

    Real people do not need to take weapons to political rally’s. You do not need to carry weapons into bars, stores and librarys. Its nothing more than proof that someone is using jedi mind control on you and you cant use your own head.

    You own a weapon, you get it out when you hunt, when you clean it and when you sport shoot. And you put it back in the closet and be a man about it.

    FFS. Guns are the dumbest object of devotion on earth. They are right up there with Cheney’s obsession with Iraq.

  37. @Shiva, Your assertion that the majority of individuals who commit homicide are not, prior to their act of homicide, criminals, is false; the majority of individuals who commit homicide do so after having attained a criminal record.

  38. @Dimensio,

    From 2004

    Victim/Offender Relationships

    Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

  39. @Dimensio,

    From 2004 FBI Stats

    Victim/Offender Relationships

    Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

  40. @dimensio

    Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders, 23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

    78% of murders performed by people who were family /or aquantences in 2008

  41. @Dimensio,

    That use of the phrase was a joke on the conservatives who call all of their positions (including this one) “common sense conservatism” — you know, this is Sarah Palin’s motto, something she says in every one of her screeches.

    I can tell you that your rabidness on this issue is frightening.I want to know if you are going to start quoting water the tree of liberty next.

    And if you are, you are one of the people who should not own a firearm. Tell me that you know that Obama is not coming for your guns.

    I can’t wait until Alan Grayson is president one day….:-)

  42. @EnglishSaddle, The context of your statement did not, in any way, imply an attempt at humour, nor did it imply a reference to statements issued by conservatives. Your appeal to the poisoning the well fallacy is no more justifiable than are such appeals issued by conservatives.

    I have no intent of quoting any water from a tree of liberty; I do not even understand how such water could issue statements that could subsequently be quoted. Moreover, I am aware of no current plan established by Mr. Obama to “come for my guns”.

    I do not understand how you may be physically incapable of waiting for Mr. Grayson to assume the office of the President of the United States of America.

  43. @Shiva,

    The data that you have referenced does not validate your previous claim that the majority of individuals who commit homicide are not already “criminals”.

  44. @Shiva, Of what relevance is your reference to the current discussion? Additionally, are you unaware that rival criminals are often considered to be “acquaintances”?

  45. @Dimensio, I love the way you run.

    78% of all murders are committed by criminals? Boyfriends, wives, relatives?

    Nice try, but it doesnt make soup.

  46. @Dimensio,

    How are her concerns validated by the current administration? Do you or do you not believe Obama is coming for your guns? Your answer to this question determines whether or not you are dealing with reality, and hence, whether or not debate is merited here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.