Personally I am for national health care or Medicare for all. I love the social security system and the progressive ideas of FDR. I also own and love guns. I find myself split between agreeing with people like Ed Schultz on issues like health care and unions but then totally disagreeing with his rants against the stand your ground law, his position on the Martin/Zimmerman case and guns in general. Ed is a gun person to some degree and hunts. But he is not a CCW gun person. I believe in guns for self defense and to some small degree keep our government in line. I think the days of the people having enough power with small arms to force the government to do what it should are gone as technology and arms have made us not as much of a deterrent as it once did.
can a gun owner support Obama?
- Thread starter gremlinx
- Start date
- Status
oneounceload
member
Sure you can, on guns, he isn't any better or worse than his predicted adversary, Romney
Where the battle needs to be won is in the House and Senate, and at your local levels in city, county and state elections
Where the battle needs to be won is in the House and Senate, and at your local levels in city, county and state elections
Nushif
Member
Aside from none of the major persidential candidates being particularly pro-gun, here is something else to think about:
Does "being a gun owner" neccesarily mean your voting habits have to revolve around one issue only? What exactly makes "being a gun owner" so special? How does gun ownership differ from minivan ownership?
Does "being a gun owner" neccesarily mean your voting habits have to revolve around one issue only? What exactly makes "being a gun owner" so special? How does gun ownership differ from minivan ownership?
No, you can't. Just one of the reasons is this quote, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." That's what he said to Sarah Brady when she asked what he was doing about gun control. A "few processes"?, "under the radar"? That sure doesn't sound very pro gun or honest to me. BTW, why would anyone trust a person if they go completely against an oath they swore to support and defend the constitution by supporting totally unconstitutional things like nationalized health care? Here's the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Constitution does not delegate power over the health care system to the federal government, therefore it has no legitimate authority over it. Off subject I know, but it seems that a candidate's honesty and loyalty to their oath in all subjects should be taken into account when considering their suitability for office.
You might be interested to know that before he contracted Polio, President Franklin Roosevelt was as an active big-bore rifle competitor, as was President John Kennedy. Both FDR and his wife enjoyed informal revolver shooting.
But when it comes to their political party of choice we find a solid case of “don’t do as I do, do as I say,” which is not uncommon among the leftist elite class.
You need to face up to a reality, that is that most of the candidates and office holders who support your views on social welfare programs and “big government” also support substantial curbs on the ownership and use of firearms. They aren’t likely to change, so you are going to have to decide which of the issues are most important to you. Personally I face no conflicts of interest.
You may not have noticed, but the most technically advanced military the world has ever known has for all practical purposes been beat in Three underdeveloped countries – Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan where those that opposed us had nothing more then small arms and improvised weapons. What they did have was absolute determination to win, along with equally determined leadership. Our military didn’t lose these wars – our vacillating political leadership did, along with a lack of popular support at home.
But when it comes to their political party of choice we find a solid case of “don’t do as I do, do as I say,” which is not uncommon among the leftist elite class.
You need to face up to a reality, that is that most of the candidates and office holders who support your views on social welfare programs and “big government” also support substantial curbs on the ownership and use of firearms. They aren’t likely to change, so you are going to have to decide which of the issues are most important to you. Personally I face no conflicts of interest.
You may not have noticed, but the most technically advanced military the world has ever known has for all practical purposes been beat in Three underdeveloped countries – Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan where those that opposed us had nothing more then small arms and improvised weapons. What they did have was absolute determination to win, along with equally determined leadership. Our military didn’t lose these wars – our vacillating political leadership did, along with a lack of popular support at home.
xXxplosive
Member
Maybe a drunken gun owner..............
Schutzen
Member
Support Obama???
My answer is no. For the record, I am opposed to the health care bill, but I chose to leave it out of this discussion.
A gun owner should oppose Obama. Look at the people he chooses as advisors. Most are socialist at best, and some seem to be outright communists. All have radical left leaning personal beliefs. Obama himself is a strong proponent of submitting to the rule of the United Nations. The UN this year is trying to push a global anti-gun resolution that would ban private ownership of handguns worldwide. If this passes in the United Nations Council, I fully expect Obama to push hard for it to pass the US Congress. If Congress passes it, you can bet Obama will sign it into law.
Another consideration is the US Supreme Court. It is very likely the next president will nominate not less than 2 new justices. Look at the ones Obama nominated already. Do you think his next nomine will be any less liberal? If another ultra-liberal judge is seated on the Supreme Court, all of our advances of gun laws will soon be lost. Remember, the average term for a Supreme court Justice is 20+ years. Are any of us ready for liberal court for the next 20 years?
Romney’s record on guns is not stellar, but he is still light years ahead of Obama.
My answer is no. For the record, I am opposed to the health care bill, but I chose to leave it out of this discussion.
A gun owner should oppose Obama. Look at the people he chooses as advisors. Most are socialist at best, and some seem to be outright communists. All have radical left leaning personal beliefs. Obama himself is a strong proponent of submitting to the rule of the United Nations. The UN this year is trying to push a global anti-gun resolution that would ban private ownership of handguns worldwide. If this passes in the United Nations Council, I fully expect Obama to push hard for it to pass the US Congress. If Congress passes it, you can bet Obama will sign it into law.
Another consideration is the US Supreme Court. It is very likely the next president will nominate not less than 2 new justices. Look at the ones Obama nominated already. Do you think his next nomine will be any less liberal? If another ultra-liberal judge is seated on the Supreme Court, all of our advances of gun laws will soon be lost. Remember, the average term for a Supreme court Justice is 20+ years. Are any of us ready for liberal court for the next 20 years?
Romney’s record on guns is not stellar, but he is still light years ahead of Obama.
jimmyraythomason
Member
This. Obama? I am against everything he does/has done and he is against everything I believe. No brainer.
cyclopsshooter
Member
Voted for big O last time and will again. He knows that gun control is political suicide. And just because he would be in his second term without need to run again will not bring him out of the closet. He is the head of the democratic party and has a vested interest in seeing another Democrat follow him into office.
mg.mikael
Member
If he is re-elected then he'll be a lame duck president meaning since he can't be re-elected a third time he can literally pass whatever bills he wants as it can't hurt him politically.
But that's not the biggest threat to 2nd Amendment rights, it's the fact that the the members on the Supreme Court aren't getting any younger. In Obama's first term he's already placed in Kagan and Sotomayor, two judges clearly in Obamas pocket. Then we have Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia all born in the 1930's. Who lets face it are all going to be retiring in this decade, with at least one likely retiring in the next four years. Meaning the whole make-up of the Court can change; effectively putting us back in the dark-ages of gun ownership.
But if for some reason this dosn't sway your thoughts, and you still decide to vote for Obama, you only have yourself and other ignorant Americans to blame.
Nushif
Member
To keep this thread on purpose for THR, lemme repost my question. Arguably the best analysis of the topic thus far has been the post about judges retiring. No president, whether we like them or not, personally can enact gun control. The placement of judges in the Supreme Court is where a truly anti gun president can do damage.
On the other hand as someoen has already pointed out. Gun control is a political suicide. This does extend to parties, and frankly we have been winning over a lot of fence sitters. No matter how hard some of us try.
I just can't support Obama and his "progressive" (Marxist) ways in which you believe. The main reason, I thin the progressive philosophy means a big, very controlling government which quickly becomes totalitarian.
The main reason for the 2nd Amendment was to be able to fight a tyrannical government. That is one reason I believe in personal gun ownership. Progressive = Tyrannical. Therefore gun ownership and Obama's philosophy of big government and power are mutually exclusive, and can not co-exist.
The main reason for the 2nd Amendment was to be able to fight a tyrannical government. That is one reason I believe in personal gun ownership. Progressive = Tyrannical. Therefore gun ownership and Obama's philosophy of big government and power are mutually exclusive, and can not co-exist.
Old krow
Member
I agree. The executive branch has been anti-gun for quite some time, and the future doesn't look any better. I think that it's more about those in power wanting to stay in power. We have the biggest pull on our representatives.
beatledog7
Member
mg.mikael said:
The President cannot pass a Bill, ever. He can only sign or veto a Bill passed by both Houses of Congress. Many presidents have used the Executive Order to create what amounts to legislation, mostly illegally. But none has ever passed a Bill.
I'm not a single-issue voter, so I don't vote simply for the most 2A-friendly candidate. Also, and I understand how the various branches of government are set up to work, and I don't think any chief executive will get away with gutting 2A.
He or she might try to appoint anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS, but they would have to be confirmed by a Senate made up of members who want to keep on being members. It's the role of voters in every state to remind their Senators that if they vote to confirm a Justice whose agenda (they're not supposed to have an agenda) is to gut 2A, they will get sent home.
I won't be voting for Obama, but I can imagine a gun owner doing so, provided that gun owner is not a single-issue 2A voter.
joecil
Member
I normally stay out of these types of discussion as I am liberal on some things and very conservative on others, a true independent. I find both sides of the aisle will screw you when it comes to guns. Besides when one thinks about it getting a gun anywhere in the US is easy regardless of the laws and only those that worry about obeying the law are afraid of gun laws. I've been carrying concealed for about 45 to 46 years now and before states decided they could pass laws restricting it. I simply feel presidents don't set gun agenda regardless of party but congress does and even when liberals are in power few federal laws change really. It is the state and local levels that restrict most peoples rights to own, carry or even posses a gun and then only to law abiding citizens. I happen not to be one that worries much any more about what the local government says I can or can't do within reason. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 if you get my drift. Yes and I could support Obama based on other things but have not decided as of yet who I will vote for as it is still too early to make up my mind. Gun control is the least of our current problems on a world wide and national scale with it mostly being pushed by BS.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
The two groups that really impact firearm ownership are Congress and the Supreme Court. The presidents historically the past thirty years has signed every gun control law that hits their desks.
The problem I have with Obama regarding firearms is his nominees to the Supreme Court.
I do think the Democratic Party would be more popular with the common man if it took a better stance on firearms. Being against firearms ownership at a national level has hurt the Democratic Party.
The problem I have with Obama regarding firearms is his nominees to the Supreme Court.
I do think the Democratic Party would be more popular with the common man if it took a better stance on firearms. Being against firearms ownership at a national level has hurt the Democratic Party.
kris7047th
Member
I DON'T support the healthcare bill. The passage and activation will rape the working man's wallet to pay for those who don't/haven't contributed one iota (illegal aliens that Obama wants to give amnesty too)
Aside from that .. NO .. It just isn't possible when you look to see who he has put in office (and all of the Czars) judges who oppose 2A .. it's a no brainer. Eric Holder and his stance ? Fast and Furious debacle? If Obama gets voted in (which I truly fear he will) watch our 2A rights get stripped a lot because that IS the Liberal's agenda.
Aside from that .. NO .. It just isn't possible when you look to see who he has put in office (and all of the Czars) judges who oppose 2A .. it's a no brainer. Eric Holder and his stance ? Fast and Furious debacle? If Obama gets voted in (which I truly fear he will) watch our 2A rights get stripped a lot because that IS the Liberal's agenda.
Can a gun owner support Obama? Plenty do.
The better question to ask is, can an RKBA advocate support him and his policies? There are those that do.
Like you, most people aren't single issue voters. There are plenty of issues important to them that are as or more important than RKBA. Those voters need to be reached by RKBA advocates so that they can help make sure that their candidate for POTUS understands that the candidate needs their support and that support also requires the candidate to have at least an RKBA neutral policy. Single issue RKBA voters are in the minority and if we want to have a neutral or pro-RKBA stance from all POTUS candidates we need voters that aren't single issue voters to push our mutual requirements to the POTUS candidates.
That's true, if the government wanted to use the full force at their disposal, but then they'd invalidate their position as a rightful government under the law before the public and risk being tossed out. Look how dearly they paid for previous heavy-handed exploits after they mistakenly thought they could use more force than the public would accept.
Even when the government does want to use military force consider how our military has faired against insurgents who are willing to use guerilla tactics to waste NATO lives. With all the power at our disposal some will point out that illiterate peasants with little more than rags and AKs can do a lot to confound a standing army.
The better question to ask is, can an RKBA advocate support him and his policies? There are those that do.
Like you, most people aren't single issue voters. There are plenty of issues important to them that are as or more important than RKBA. Those voters need to be reached by RKBA advocates so that they can help make sure that their candidate for POTUS understands that the candidate needs their support and that support also requires the candidate to have at least an RKBA neutral policy. Single issue RKBA voters are in the minority and if we want to have a neutral or pro-RKBA stance from all POTUS candidates we need voters that aren't single issue voters to push our mutual requirements to the POTUS candidates.
That's true, if the government wanted to use the full force at their disposal, but then they'd invalidate their position as a rightful government under the law before the public and risk being tossed out. Look how dearly they paid for previous heavy-handed exploits after they mistakenly thought they could use more force than the public would accept.
Even when the government does want to use military force consider how our military has faired against insurgents who are willing to use guerilla tactics to waste NATO lives. With all the power at our disposal some will point out that illiterate peasants with little more than rags and AKs can do a lot to confound a standing army.
mljdeckard
Member
I am not a single issue voter. But RKBA is frequently the tiebreaker.
Romney is....not great. He is a 'born'again' gun person. NRA gives I think a B+, I think it should be more like a D+.
But BE SERIOUS. Who do you want picking the next two Supreme Court Justices? Romney or Obama?
Romney is....not great. He is a 'born'again' gun person. NRA gives I think a B+, I think it should be more like a D+.
But BE SERIOUS. Who do you want picking the next two Supreme Court Justices? Romney or Obama?
mljdeckard
Member
Anything like.....nominating Kagan and Sotamayor to the Supreme Court, picking extremely anti General and BATFE head, or something REALLY crazy, like concocting a scheme to try to convince the general public that Americans are supplying most of the guns to the guns for the war in Mexico, getting American agents and many Mexicans killed in the process?
You're right. I hope he doesn't do anything that would hurt our gun rights. Everyone would see right through it and throw him out of office, without question.
You're right. I hope he doesn't do anything that would hurt our gun rights. Everyone would see right through it and throw him out of office, without question.
Texan Scott
Member
Gun owners may support Obama. I do not believe Obama will support gun owners. I HOPE he will largely leave us alone on the RKBA front... but given his track record (his wanting to use executive authority to put returning PTSD diagnosed veterans on the NICS ban list without judicial order, denying them their 2A rights without due process ANGERS ME) 
somehow i doubt he'll leave us alone.
edited to say: aim this thread carefully between the uprights, boys... this one's a moderator lockdown waiting to happen.
somehow i doubt he'll leave us alone.
edited to say: aim this thread carefully between the uprights, boys... this one's a moderator lockdown waiting to happen.
IMTHDUKE
Member
Spoken like a real patriot and great American. I was there for the first of the three. Rules of engagement favoried the enemy...huh? Semper Fi
Many in this nation have a slobbering love afair with the media supported O man. Can we support him on gun right? You gotta be kidding me. Really? Hide and watch if people are so uninformed as to give the amatuer another shot at screwing up the nation.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Guns aside, I'm against Obama precisely because he's not a progressive or liberal. His health care bill, for example, was a direct sellout to the insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical industries. Those who call him a "socialist" are living on some other planet. At most, he's a political opportunist, as is Romney. Neither one of them will touch the gun issue, since it's political poison to them.
- Status
Similar threads
