Obama Campaign Threatens To Sue NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
IBTL.

This thread may be political in nature, but IMHO, this election has a lot to do with the future of firearms ownership in this country. It's hard to separate the two when you consider the facts of the matter.

The next president will likely seat at least two SCOTUS justices. With 5-4 Heller decision, it doesn't take a math genius to see what the stakes are.
 
I have two words for Mr. Obama.


BRING. IT.

Agreed. It's so on...... it's on like Donkey Kong!

Reminder to members though, lawsuits are expensive. Donate or renew early or something to the NRA.
 
The next president will likely seat at least two SCOTUS justices. With 5-4 Heller decision, it doesn't take a math genius to see what the stakes are.
Yep, there lies the biggest problem. He is blatantly anti gun, but does not want the average American to understand that. He is lying and twisting the truth to do that, and now he seems to be abusing his power to silence people. What would he do with the power of the Presidency? A scarey thought for sure.
 
Too bad Obama santized his website after Palin was nominated. It provided all the evidence one needed of his anti-gun stances.

Of course, one can always go to www.ontheissues.org to find Obama's own statements describing his intent to ban firearms.
 
You, on the other hand, have taken the time to check out and see if it's true that Obama wants to take away gun, right?

Mike

Ideed I have.

And while it is true he had not said that he specifically wants to take away my revolver, pump shotguns, or lever guns, he HAS said he wants to ban all my other guns (semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns).

I guess since he only wants half, it's ok.
 
I guess since he only wants half, it's ok.
It is not OK. He wants them all. Half by half, or one at a time. He does not care as long as he gets them all in the end.
 
It is not OK. He wants them all. Half by half, or one at a time. He does not care as long as he gets them all in the end.

Please activate your sarcasm detector...
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”


Can the governor fire or bring charges against the DAs and Sherriffs who are participating in the "truth squad" as they are calling themselves? It seems like a blatant ethical/professional violation for them to be actively participating in this.
 
It seems like a blatant ethical/professional violation for them to be actively participating in this.

Their current argument is that they were not speaking of criminal charges, but only of stating the "truth." Of course, that's now what they indicated in their interviews.
 
Their current argument is that they were not speaking of criminal charges, but only of stating the "truth." Of course, that's now what they indicated in their interviews.

Because chief LEO and DAs don't have any job other than enforcing the "truth"... How exactly do they enforce it again? Oh that's right, they prosecute people! So any statements like the ones they have made about "enforcing the truth" reads an awful lot like "the truth as we want it" will be enforced by prosecutions and expensive trials.

Their cute little claims aren't going to save them, the DAs should be disbarred for this.
 
RCPVYemen said:
But a dem that wants to take away guns would cross the line. The worst part is I doubt very many people will take the time to check it out to see if it is true or not.
You, on the other hand, have taken the time to check out and see if it's true that Obama wants to take away gun, right?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws​
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.


FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban​
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing​
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008​

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month​
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007​

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers​
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. 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."

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities​
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. 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. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality​
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban​
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions​

* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998​

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.​
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

* Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Obama's record speaks for itself. If he sues, he'll lose. Case closed. This was too easy.
 
Thank the mods for being gracious and leaving this open.

Political? Yes.

Does the Obama campaign's assault on both 1st and 2nd Amendments DIRECTLY effect our rights and gun ownership? Absolutely!

As another commenter said, discussing such may break the letter of the law here, but the spirit of the High Road begs for this to be exposed.

Such a thread isn't just griping and preaching to the choir. There are gun owners on this board that plan to vote for BHO in November and they need to know the consequences of their action.
 
Most of the real grief on guns comes from the states and local governments, it seems to me.

Now it does. Up until 1994, most of the fighting was done at the federal level. After the Dems lost so big in '94 over the AWB, they changed tactics and concentrated on the state level in order to build support for future federal action.

Of course, there has been federal action such as the ATF's elimination of FFLs, trade agreements with Russia that blocked the importation of Russian weapons, the banning of Chinese firearms, etc. But that didn't make the news much.
 
A quote taken from Obama's web response to the supposed "lies" of the NRA:

Obama believes in America’s tradition on responsible hunting. He believes hunting rifles belong in the wilderness with America’s hunters, but also believes we need to keep AK-47s off our city streets. Obama supports the federal Assault Weapons Ban, which would keep assault weapons on our battlefields and off our streets. [SOURCE: OFA policy statements; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022]

Straight from the horse's mouth. On the very website where Obama's campaign tries to paint him as pro-gun, they admit that he still supports one of the most arbitrary, byzantine and onerous federal laws that gun owners ever had to comply with.

Plainly Obama doesn't think you should be allowed to have an AR-15 for shooting CMP Service Rifle matches. He quite evidently has no love for those who wish to take part in 3 Gun Competition, or anyone who shoots Open or Limited division in IPSC.

And he very clearly doesn't think you should be able to keep an AR-15 or a Glock with a standard-capacity magazine for defense of life and limb.

For crying out loud, the guy can't even fake pro-gun sincerity in a short essay. I find it absolutely flabbergasting that there are people who take his claims of being pro-gun at face value. If you believe Obama is at all pro-gun you're either deluded or really need to learn how to use Google.

That his lawyers would stoop to bullying people out of exercising freedom of speech is absolutely unconscionable. Call me a hypocrite if you like, but the shockingly low-road approach Obama's campaign has stooped to in this matter has pretty much assured that I won't be locking this thread.
 
Yup, just renewed my NRA membership today about 10 minutes ago. I need to quit letting it expire.
 
so obama doesn't want to take away our guns, and he does not want to re-instate the AWB. Wow interesting. maybe I should vote for him now. :barf:
 
I think if you ask him a question about guns, his first reaction will be to check his geographical location, and then make some patronizing remark about "respecting" "america's traditions" or some other nonsense.


What a rube.
 
There are gun owners on this board that plan to vote for BHO in November and they need to know the consequences of their action.

They know already. They just don't care, and are happy to sacrifice the RKBA for the trip to the promised land Obama has promised.
 
(QUOTE) I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006


I can not understand how anyone can draw any reasonable argument for gun control from this statement.

How is it my fault as an EBR owner or
Glock .40 owner that makes a gangbangers "hole in his heart" of any concern ? Let's not punish everyone for the actions of few.
 
This thread is about Barak Obama's position on guns, which is about civil liberties and guns. But really, Folks, you are missing the point: Obama's campaign is all about Change, and his position on guns reflects that theme: it changes to suit whatever audience he is addressing.
 
Having said that - The Annoyed Man put forth a very thorough review of Obama's record on gun control that DOES speak for itself.

And...having said that...I can't help but observe that certain moderators apparently believe that as long as a political thread reflects THEIR political opinions - it's OK to keep them open contrary to the (apparently former) policies of THR.
 
And...having said that...I can't help but observe that certain moderators apparently believe that as long as a political thread reflects THEIR political opinions - it's OK to keep them open contrary to the (apparently former) policies of THR.

If you had read the entire thread, you would see that answered.
 
If you had read the entire thread, you would see that answered.

I DID read the entire thread...apparently I missed the answer to why this POLITICAL thread is still open. Please enlighten me.

Personally, I would welcome the renewal of the allowance of political discussions at THR. I would, however, argue for some consistancy in how the rules are applied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top