Obama on guns

[NeTrips]

Obama will have a big problem attracting the blue-collar white voters he needs to win the presidency, writes Bob Owens: they like guns and he wants to take their guns away.

As she clawed for survival against Barack Obama in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary this past weekend, Hillary Clinton lamely asserted her Second Amendment bona fides over that of her rival by claiming that she once shot a duck in Arkansas.

As pathetic a pander as that tale was, it did serve to point out one gaping weakness in the armor of the Illinois senator, a man who must rely on blue-collar white voters if he hopes to prevail first in the Democratic primaries, and later in the general election.

The weakness? Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms.

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

That same year, Obama bravely voted “present” on a law that would require teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. Obama also proposed the idea of banning businesses that sell firearms from operating within five miles of a park or school — restrictions that would treat gun shops worse than “adult” businesses trafficking in inappropriate contentography.

From 1998-2001, Obama sat on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, a left-wing group which today funds grants to anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center (which advocates total handgun prohibition, reinstatement of the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban, and the ban of other firearms), the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (which favors the registration of all handguns, seeks to overturn Ohio’s “concealed carry” law, ban standard capacity magazines, and ban economical handguns along with many semi-automatic firearms based upon their appearance), and Handgun Free America (which advocates a complete ban on civilian handgun ownership).

All of these organizations seek to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is the idea of “change” that they share with Barack Obama.

On the federal stage, Obama’s brief U.S. Senate career has already seen him vote against a bill (S.397) to protect the firearms industry from those who seek to sue manufacturers, distributors, and importers for the criminal misuse of firearms by criminals, an idea akin to suing car manufacturers for damages caused by drunk drivers.

Tellingly, Obama’s presidential campaign has sought to hide his history of trying to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Buried deep in the “Issues” section of Obama’s web site under “Additional Issues” is a PDF document that can only be described as an attempt to talk around Obama’s real position on firearm ownership. In a section where the campaign claims to “respect” the Second Amendment, the document states:

Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.
Tellingly, Obama’s campaign only addresses the gun rights of hunters and specific shotgun-only shooting sports, and only then in vague terms.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/obama_shooting_himself_in_the.php

 

[HumbleMan]

Eh, presidents don't make laws, congress does. And as long as one party or the other doesn't have a supermajority, hot button issues like gun control are moot.

 

[NeTrips]

it's not so easily dismissed. If elected Obama would be introducing legislation and signing bills into law. His disdain for guns and gun owners and his demonstrated ignorance on guns is reason to pause for those who like their 2nd amendment rights....

 

[HumbleMan]

He can introduce all he wants, but the congresscritters know who butters their bread, and they won't have enough votes to enact anything.

 

[NeTrips]

Even with Obamessiah as Pres, you don't see him being able to get anything done?

 

[Rick Otto]

Eh, presidents don't make laws, congress does. And as long as one party or the other doesn't have a supermajority, hot button issues like gun control are moot.

LOL. As moot as the AK 47's I see bein' carried out of the gun shows I canvass at for Ron Paul.
If you want your faith in America restored, go to a gun show.
And now Obama wants 7% of our GNP to be paid to the U.N. to "fight global poverty".
Stop the Welfare/Warfare State, return to The Constitution & vote for Ron Paul!

 

[HumbleMan]

LOL. As moot as the AK 47's I see bein' carried out of the gun shows I canvass at for Ron Paul.
If you want your faith in America restored, go to a gun show.
And now Obama wants 7% of our GNP to be paid to the U.N. to "fight global poverty".
Stop the Welfare/Warfare State, return to The Constitution & vote for Ron Paul!

Haven't y'all given up by now? He has no chance of winning.

 

[HumbleMan]

Even with Obamessiah as Pres, you don't see him being able to get anything done?

I think it's very disrespectful to (even jokingly) equate any man with Christ.

And no, I don't think that gun control will be one of his priorities. He's got other things, like finding out how to pay for your president's boondoggle spending spree, how to withdraw troops from Iraq in a manner that forces the Iraqis to step up and be responsible, and how to make sure at risk children get the medical care they deserve.

 

[NeTrips]

And no, I don't think that gun control will be one of his priorities. He's got other things, like finding out how to pay for your president's boondoggle spending spree, how to withdraw troops from Iraq in a manner that forces the Iraqis to step up and be responsible, and how to make sure at risk children get the medical care they deserve.

"Finding out how to pay..."
you mean he has no plans ready to be implemented?

 

[HumbleMan]

"Finding out how to pay..."
you mean he has no plans ready to be implemented?

I mean he's going to have to look at the situation, and who he has to work with in congress, and then decide the best way to bring the national debt down.

 

[NeTrips]

So there is no pending plan ready to implement..... He'll just wing it?

 

[Rick Otto]

Haven't y'all given up by now? He has no chance of winning.

Sorry to annoy. I vote on principles not on odds.
Rather than vote for Kerry or Bush, & rather than not vote at all, I wrote my own name in for president, my wife for vice president, & my son for attorney general.
We could've done no worse.
Besides, Ron Paul hasn't given up OR sold out to special interests. His is the only debt-free campaign alive because like the armed forces, it is still ALL VOLUNTEER.

You on the other hand have given up on constitutional ideals for the sake of betting on money.
You probably don't know the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank with an anonymous board of directors & that the IRS is a privately owned corporation as well.
Do you know anything about The War Powers Act? It ts a law enacted by Congress that requires war to be declared by congress, not the president. So when congress votes to approve, it doesn't make it legal, it makes them accessories after the fact. Ron Paul was the only Republican congressman who voted not to approve it. He doesn't vote on odds either, he votes on constitutional principles.
Thinking he has no chance of winning is letting the special-interest owned mainstream media do your thinking for you.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Sorry to annoy. I vote on principles not on odds.
Rather than vote for Kerry or Bush, & rather than not vote at all, I wrote my own name in for president, my wife for vice president, & my son for attorney general.
We could've done no worse.
Besides, Ron Paul hasn't given up OR sold out to special interests. His is the only debt-free campaign alive because like the armed forces, it is still ALL VOLUNTEER.

You on the other hand have given up on constitutional ideals for the sake of betting on money.
You probably don't know the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank with an anonymous board of directors & that the IRS is a privately owned corporation as well.
Do you know anything about The War Powers Act? It ts a law enacted by Congress that requires war to be declared by congress, not the president. So when congress votes to approve, it doesn't make it legal, it makes them accessories after the fact. Ron Paul was the only Republican congressman who voted not to approve it. He doesn't vote on odds either, he votes on constitutional principles.
Thinking he has no chance of winning is letting the special-interest owned mainstream media do your thinking for you.

Ron Paul

Write him in!

 

[Rick Otto]

Senate Bill S-2433 by Obama, being railroaded thru by Senator Joe Biden, has the USA giving 7% of GNP to the UN, forcing us to surrender some sovereignty to the UN. Part of the plan commits us to banning small arms and light weapons as well as forcing us to sign treaties that we have refused to in the past, because of their compromising our sovereignty.
From the bill itself:

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The "requirements" section of the bill only alludes to the anti-poverty provisions, the definitions section is especially broad and would include the entire Millennium Declaration.

Don't be naive, and don't be useful idiots. This guy will harm our Constitution, thinking he's doing the right thing.