[vegasjeep]

vote obama.... LOSE guns!

Impartial? Independent? NO!
FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation

Hillary Clinton said it best,
" You cannot trust Obama with your Guns"

Obama will be the most anti gun president EVER

FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.


If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."


FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.


FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)

 

[vegasjeep]

I think the word you were looking for was "lose" as in" I hope McCain doesn't lose the election. And "damn that hoe was "loose" 8)

Good post though

missed that, thanks!

 

[Billy_Goat]

Great post. I'm re-posting that.

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/pol/878402668.html

 

[Randyzzz]

Just be sure to encourage all anti-Obama voters to actually vote on election day. I've had to talk several people who aren't that crazy about McCain into actually voting! Remember- not voting might as well be a vote for Obama!

NObama

 

[Dustoff '68]

View attachment 3318

 

[SDMF]

Illinois is one of the few states that has no right to carry to begin with. Also, as far as guns go, you can only hunt deer with a shotgun, no rifles allowed. I think there is a pistol season as well, but IIRC you had to be handicapped to get a tag for it. It's been 15 years or so since I lived there but I know it has not changed much.

 

[priell3]

Taking aim at Obama's stance on gun control
The candidate says he supports the right to bear arms. The record says otherwise.
By John R. Lott Jr.

A senior research scientist at the University of Maryland

Barack Obama claims he is a friend of gun owners. He certainly has convinced the media.
On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times said the NRA's opposition to Obama seemed strange because "Obama does not oppose gun rights. He has made a point of pounding this home to rural audiences, telling them he has no intention of taking their guns away: not their shotguns, not their handguns, not anything."

From the Boston Globe to FactCheck.org, the media and their watchdogs have uncritically recited Obama's statement that he believes there is an individual right to own guns. How does Brooks Jackson, FactCheck.org's director, explain the NRA's opposition to Obama? He says: "They are lying. . . . They are just making this up."

Yet, while the media and their checkers take Obama's current statements about his beliefs at face value, the NRA doesn't. So who is right?

In Pennsylvania, the answer could alter the election outcome. With about one million of the country's 12.5 million hunters, Pennsylvanians spend more time hunting than the residents of any other state. Pennsylvania also has more concealed-handgun permit holders than any other state, about 600,000.

In June, when the Supreme Court struck down the gun ban in Washington, D.C., Obama claimed that the decision merely confirmed his own view. He told Fox News that he had "said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on."

But that doesn't square with statements Obama has made in the past. Just last November, Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." After Obama's later statement supporting the Supreme Court decision, the campaign disowned the Tribune quote as a staffer's "inartful attempt" to characterize his position.

Obama also blamed a 1996 statement supporting a handgun ban on a staffer's mistake. But Politico discovered a copy of the candidate's statement with Obama's own handwritten comments on it.

Obama personally voiced support for the D.C. ban at other times. In February, Leon Harris, a news anchor for the ABC affiliate in Washington, said to Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control . . . but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama's simple response: "Right." When Harris added "and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama again said "right," and he is clearly seen on tape nodding his head in agreement.

In fact, Obama has a long history of supporting city gun bans. The Associated Press described his vote on a gun-control bill in 2004: "He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."

No major-party presidential nominee has ever had as strong and consistent an anti-gun record as Obama. Here is a politician who supported a ban on handguns in 1996, backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns in 1998 (which would encompass most guns sold in the country), and advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park in 2004 (a virtual ban on all gun stores). He also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the largest private funder of anti-gun research in the country.

This evidence should be sufficient, but I have yet another reason to be skeptical. I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, when we were both at the University of Chicago Law School. Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he said, "Oh, you are the gun guy."

I responded, "Yes, I guess so." His response, as I recall it, was, "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

When I said it might be fun sometime to talk about the question and his support of Chicago's lawsuit against gunmakers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

Obama obviously thinks the gun issue is important. He and his surrogates constantly repeat the claim that he has always supported an individual right to own guns. But the media should stop uncritically reporting the claim without checking his past statements.

 

[bofer84]

This is a stupid issue anyway....the gun issue is 3rail, it would never pass...ever. Im voting Mccain, but i can at least tell you even if he tried it would never make it past congress...even if they have the majority. There are just to many people in favor of this.

 

[Dustoff '68]

I'm not worried...nobody wants to even think about trying to take my weapons away.

 

[Grover]

I'm not worried...nobody wants to even think about trying to take my weapons away.

x2

I don't want them to get loose though. I don't think it matters what puppet we have in the white house. The president can only change so much on his own.

 

[paragon]

there will be no "taking" of guns but there very easily could be more/various gun restrictions

 

[paragon]

All he wanted was to talk to his representative about a political issue — something supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment’s right to petition clause. True, being an activist with the Minutemen and wanting to discuss concerns over criminal illegal alien activity wasn’t exactly something he expected would resonate with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), but over the years, Gabriel Razzano had established a rapport with her chief of staff, who had even visited him at his home.

Except there was now a new chief, Razzano found out when he paid a visit to McCarthy’s office. And he didn’t return calls. So Razzano returned to McCarthy’s office to make an appointment, and this time was informed he was no longer one of her constituents due to reapportionment. They promised they’d straighten things out, but a week later, not having heard from them, he came back. They instructed him to go to the board of elections, which he did, returning with a “stamped official copy of his Certificate of Registration along with a Voter Registration Printout,” both confirming he was a McCarthy constituent. Proof in hand, he went back to her office.

There he was confronted by a Nassau County Police detective, who, according to a lawsuit Razzano filed in federal court, “informed [him] that he was not in Rep. McCarthy’s district and that he should leave [her] office alone. [The detective] then told Plaintiff to stop ‘annoying’ Rep. McCarthy and not to contact Rep. McCarthy on any issue until he straightened this ‘entire situation out.’” The detective escorted Razzano down the elevator, where they ran into the congresswoman on the ground floor (she would not respond to Razzano’s request to speak) and saw him out the door.

The bum’s rush, one would think. But that wasn’t the end of it. The next day, police showed up at Razzano’s house and demanded that he surrender his guns or face arrest. Someone from McCarthy’s office called them and complained about his behavior, so police told him they were removing his legally registered weapons — nine rifles, 15 handguns, and his fiancée’s handgun — for 90 days.

A week later, Razzano still hadn’t been given a receipt for his property, which he had to request. Three weeks later, he received a letter from Nassau County Police Chief Anthony Rocco stating his pistol license had been revoked, because he “had become ‘increasingly obsessed with the day laborer situation’ and that [his] ‘actions have cause[d] great concern over [his] suitability to possess a pistol license.’” And they weren’t going to return his long guns either, since there was no provision in law to do so.

Meanwhile, Carolyn McCarthy denied any knowledge of the 911 call. It wasn’t until the magistrate ordered it at a discovery hearing that the name of the staffer who made the call became known.
What we have here is an American citizen — with no criminal charges against him, no convictions, no mental health diagnoses, no adjudication of any kind — being stripped of his Second Amendment rights because he exercised those promised in the First.

http://www.gunsmagazine.com/DGR1208.html

hattip Pony Driver at Pirate

 

[Grover]

Every 4 years the gun issue comes up. It's time to whoop up the base. Think it'll work this go around? I say no.

The gun ban that Clinton signed really sucked. Remember "assault Weapons Ban" of 1994? It didn't stop violent crime or even slow it down. All it did was make prices go up on the fun stuff. It has been proved over and over again that gun control does not work. It only keeps innocent people from protecting themselves and families with legally obtained registered guns from criminals with stolen and illegally obtained unregistered guns. Karny is right this issue comes up all the time. Remember the HR1022 scare a couple years back? I think maybe the govt. learned a lesson from the Clinton era ban.

What I don't understand is this... People commit murder and crime using firearms, so people want to outlaw them. I had a car stolen with a brick and a screwdriver. No one wants to outlaw them. I think there should be a 7 day cooling off period for buying a brick.

 

[Dustoff '68]

Yep...gay rights....i's ok so long as it's don't ask and don't tell...problem I have is legislating homosexuality as a viable biological alternative...that it's not, never was, and never will be...and yeah, marriage to me is a sacred union between a man and a woman...don't like it, tough...

 

[pastorsteve]

When the neo-cons can't come up with a compelling arguement to vote for their preferred candidate, they stir up old scare tactics to "scare up" as many votes as possible. Gun control, gay marriage.... what's next? They'll take away your savings and run the economic system into the ground.............no wait Bush and the republicans have already done that.

 

[Grover]

Next issue that'll come up is the gay rights issue. This stuff is so contrived and cyclic. It's insulting.

I got in a fight with a gay guy once. It wasn't his rights I had to worry about, it was his nasty left hooks. True story. :mr-t:

All human beings deserve equal rights. IMHO.

 

[cab76]

FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.


If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

For those that are unaware, FactCheck.org is responding to a NRA ad that gives Obama's supposed "10-point plan to change the second amendment." Yes Obama opposed SB 2165, but FactCheck is NOT wrong in correctly distinguishing his vote from the NRA's claims that Obama wants to "ban the use of firearms for home self-defense." Obama's vote on SB 2165 means that Obama thinks someone caught with an unregistered gun should have to pay the penalty for failing to register whether or not that unregistered gun was used in the act of home defense. This vote doesn't mean that Obama thinks that a homeowner shouldn't keep a gun for home defense, only that the gun registration laws of a particular area should be upheld.

FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

Again, FactCheck is NOT wrong. First, Obama never explicitly "voted to ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." He voted in favor of the amendment that would have expanded the definition of armor piercing ammunition. Deer hunting ammunition is typically rifle ammunition and while it may in fact be armor penetrating it is not designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability. Why would it be - it's for hunting deer, not armor plated deer. FactCheck does note that it may be possible for a future administration to misinterpret the language of the amendment, but Congressional intent does not appear to have been to ban "virtually all deer hunting ammunition" based on statements from the author of the amendment.

FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

Are you kidding me? Some obscure 1996 questionnaire answer is the best you can do to prove to me that Obama supports the ban of the "manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns" (this is the NRA claim)? Laughable. In a 2003 survey form to the same group that the 1996 questionnaire was sent to he indicated no such support for a handgun ban. His position has been consistent on this and he has spoken at length about this issue during the campaign, but the NRA wants you to believe that some yes/no answer on a 12 year old questionnaire shows Obama's true colors. Please. If he really wanted an all out handgun ban why not propose legislation? Why not strongly hint that he would support one if elected president? Because that is clearly not his position.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.
What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

Obama's position is to require handgun registration, although some statements have hinted that he would like to require blanket gun registration, but doesn't think it is possible. FactCheck is correct to call the NRA's blanket statement misleading. Again, Obama is not trying to hide his support for handgun registration in any way - he has clearly stated that several times.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)

I noticed that you omitted a couple of the NRA's claims which FactCheck agrees are true. Heaven forbid you provide any evidence of a balanced assessment from FactCheck.

Regarding the appointing of judges, the NRA claims that Obama will employ some sort of a second amendment test to his nominees. He has never stated that he would do so, so FactCheck correctly calls that claim unsupported. Is it possible and even likely that he will try to appoint judges that agree with his opinions - probably, but that is different from putting words in his mouth to that effect as the NRA does.

Finally, regarding FactCheck "taking Obama's spin at face value" - they are simply reporting what he said. They do not purport to tell the future and determine whether what he says is his position now would be his position after he becomes President. As FactCheck correctly points out, Obama has clearly said that he thinks the second amendment creates an individual right to bear arms, which is contrary to most extreme gun control advocates that have argued that the second amendment right is limited to a right of a militia to bear arms.


Well that's a half hour I will never get back, but it drives me crazy to see these well crafted arguments (on either side) that appear at first glance to make such strong arguments and to be so credible, but upon further examination fully break down. I'm all for meaningful debate, but these kind of unfounded reports amount to cheap scare tactics in an attempt to gain some votes a few weeks prior to the election from people that don't have time but to review these arguments at a quick glance. The OP's post came right out of a NRA press release, in case you were wondering.

Bottom line on Obama, in my opinion from a fair amount of research on the subject - he is pro gun ownership but he is also pro gun regulation. His positions are actually pretty moderate as democrats go. The NRA might not like his position, but they should not distort it.

 

[Dustoff '68]

It is politically advantageous to be pro 2nd Amendment NOW for Obama, but the reality is he has always not been a friend of gun rights....he has a long history and voting record that to a blind man shows a propensity to be anything but pro 2A...he was a member of the Joyce Foundation (you look that one up), has proposed legislation to ban gun stores within a 5 mile radius of schools (that would have shut down practically ALL gun stores), does not support provisions for CONCEALED CARRY, has voted against gun ownership in INNER CITIES...there's a whole lot more folks, but I have aslready wasted my time and bandwidth on this one...the truth is Osama ain't no fawking friend of gun owners, period!

 

[nam6869usmc]

What's it going to be "Barack"????????????????????????????????

 

[paragon]

There is nothing wrong with ignorance. Everyone is ignorant. But being blind to one's own ignorance or simply refusing to shed light on it is something each will regret.

Constructing a justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at in the past by Obama is a defense mechanism in which the true explanation in question has become secondary to defending the emotional need to support and therefore leads to rationalizing away anything that appears to either discredit or diminish "the One's" record or stances.