Need help on this editorial response


PDA






Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 16, 2009, 12:09 PM
Responding to this anti-gun nonsense in a local paper (will post original and my response later), and right now I just need these things to fill in blanks and submit this thing:

1. Link to the official site where Obama's current Admin still shows it wishes to re-instate the so-called AWB. whitehouse.gov?

2. Link to a NON-NRA sponsored site which has a copy of the "fact sheet" outlining the Obama anti-freedom history (I think you know the one I mean).


Thanks!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Need help on this editorial response" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Six
April 16, 2009, 12:45 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

Under Crime and Law Enforcement>Address Gun Violence in Cities

MisterMike
April 16, 2009, 05:30 PM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Barack_Obama's_position_on_gun_control :

What is Barack Obama's position on gun control?
In: Politics and Policy, Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign [Edit categories]

The official position
The campaign website has no mention of gun control on any of its pages.

However, the downloadable PDF file of the Obama plan for rural America has the following to say:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden deeply respect America's sportsmen and are committed to protecting their rights. Tens of millions of Americans hunt and fish. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we can protect the rights of hunters and other lawful gun owners while still working to reduce gun violence and make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill.


The quotes:

In an Illinois Senate Debate on Oct 21, 2004:
"I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."


In The Audacity of Hope (p215)
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby."

In 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum on Jul 12, 2007
"We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities."

As quoted in From Promise to Power, by David Mendell (p.250-251)
"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."


The legislation
2000 - Cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
2004 - Voted Yes to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns
2005 - Voted No on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 20, 2009, 01:01 PM
Here's the short version of my response which they're going to publish:

Response to "Under The Gun"



J.M. Madrid based his/her anti-gun-owner diatribe upon this premise: The claim that Obama would like to take our guns away is false, going so far as to call it a "lie" and even "ridiculous and fictitious nonsense". Unfortunately, this premise to his/her letter is what is fiction.



Obama does indeed want to take our guns, as evidenced by his own words, in his policy statement at the White House website, which everyone can see at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/



If you scroll down to "Crime and Law Enforcement", under the paragraph "Address Gun Violence in Cities", you can plainly see his intent to re-instate this unconstitutional gun ban, where it says "[Obama and Biden] also support making the expired federal 'Assault Weapons Ban' permanent."



This is the gun ban which the Clinton administration determined had no effect on violent crime rates, and which uses a fraudulently-misleading title which is nothing more than hoplophobe-leftist-speak for "useful home and homeland defense rifle ban".



So, Obama's current stated intent is to institute an expansive gun ban on a national basis. In addition, both his A.G. Holder and his Sec. of State Clinton have called for a re-instatement of this failed and intrusive gun ban which disarms only the law-abiding. So if Obama himself says he wants to take our guns, and two members of his cabinet do too, how much more evidence does Madrid need that Obama would like nothing better than to castrate our fundamental civil liberties? But if you do need more evidence, you can clearly see that Obama is one of the most anti-freedom politicians to ever hold public office by reviewing his history at http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=234&issue=047



The reality is very simple, and Obama supporters should take note: If Obama does not want to draw the intense ire of the gun-owning public as an obstacle to his perhaps otherwise-admirable plans for the nation, he needs to remove his stated intent and desire to take our guns away, as currently shown at his official website, and rein in his rogue cabinet members who shoot their mouths off on this issue.

Here's my original response which was too lengthy to publish:

Response to "Under The Gun"

J.M. Madrid based last week's anti-gun-owner diatribe upon this premise: The claim that Obama would like to take our guns away is untrue, going so far as to call it a "lie" perpetuated by what Madrid calls the "conservative media", and even "ridiculous and fictitious nonsense". Unfortunately for Madrid and others similarly misinformed, this premise to his or her opinion is what is sheer fiction.

Obama most certainly does want to take our guns, as evidenced by his own words, as shown in his policy statement at (where else?) the White House website, which everyone can see for themselves at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/ .

If you scroll down to "Crime and Law Enforcement", under the paragraph entitled "Address Gun Violence in Cities", you can plainly see his intent to re-instate the unconstitutional gun ban, if given a chance, where it says "[Obama and Biden] also support making the expired federal 'Assault Weapons Ban' permanent."

Remember, this is the gun ban which the Wm. Clinton administration determined had no effect on violent crime rates, after a formal study, and which uses a fraudulently-misleading title which is nothing more than hoplophobe-leftist-speak for "useful home and homeland defense rifle ban".

So, Obama's current stated intent is to institute an expansive gun ban on a national basis, without regard to the values of people in each state. In addition, both his Attorney General Eric Holder and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have called for a re-instatement of this failed and intrusive gun ban which disarms only the law-abiding. So if Obama and Biden themselves say they want to take our guns, and two members of his cabinet do as well, how much more evidence does Madrid need that Obama would like nothing better than to abrogate our fundamental civil liberties? But if you do need more evidence, you can clearly see that Obama is one of the most anti-freedom politicians to ever hold public office by reviewing his extensive gun-hating history at http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=234&issue=047 .

Madrid laments this discussion of phantom gun bans as a dangerous diversion from the issues we should be addressing, then goes on to insult all of the 85-plus million law-abiding gun owners in this country by comparing us with a mass murderer, which is highly offensive and complete nonsense. The reality is very simple, and Obama supporters should take note: If Obama does not want to draw the intense ire of the gun-owning public as an obstacle to his perhaps otherwise-admirable plans for the nation, he needs to remove his stated intent and desire to take our guns away, as currently shown at his official website, and rein in his rogue cabinet members who shoot their mouths off on this subject. Don't be angry at the media for the hype and frenzy; be angry at your president who himself is the sole cause of these justifiable fears. And let's not forget that these "homeland defense rifles" which Obama wants to ban happen to be the most useful types in the hands of a citizen in stopping a violent attack from one of these nutjobs on the "fringe" who may be pushed over the edge by the economy or some other reason.

Madrid also warns against the horror that is the idea of the citizen's militia becoming "mainstream"; nevermind the fact that the citizen's militia is the law of the land, as can be seen at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html . Is the United States Code, passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President, mainstream enough for such leftists?

Now, since the entire premise of your letter which supports the conclusion that Obama is allegedly not a certified civil rights violator, from whom we nothing to fear, has been blown out of the water, would you care to try again, Mr. or Mrs. Madrid?


The letter to which I'm responding I cannot cut and paste, and do not have time to re-type it, but you get the gist of it from my response.

Sheldon J
April 20, 2009, 01:31 PM
http://www.justfacts.com

some data if I can find the more comprehensive one I will edit....

If you enjoyed reading about "Need help on this editorial response" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!