Candidates take aim at gun owners

[Matt King]

Candidates take aim at gun owners
Posted Sunday, September 23, 2007, at 10:44 PM
<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link

The war of words comes around during every presidential election.

Candidates arm themselves with rhetoric and aim straight at America's gun owners.

At one point in the campaign season I'm sure we'll see at least one inept gun user/candidate trying to go hunting in an attempt to woo hunters' votes. Keep Dick Cheney far away, please.

Rudy Guiliani, a member of the party which you'd expect to be pro-gun, has referred to the National Rifle Association as "extremists." And as New York mayor he filed suit against gun makers and distributors over violent crimes, as though they were responsible for what criminals do with their trigger fingers.

Meanwhile, Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards both have indicated they may be against individuals owning assault weapons.

"I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family…It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic," Obama has said.

"I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters' rights to be protected," Edwards says. "But I don't think you need an AK-47 to hunt...There's some weapons that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."

I couldn't find any direct comments about the issue by Hillary Rodham Clinton in a quick Google search .

I've got mixed emotions about assault weapon ownership. Does a private citizen really need an AK-47? But, should a true, law-abiding gun collector be limited from ownership?

"My friends, gun owners are not extremists; you are the core of modern America," John McCain said, referring to the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

I wouldn't exactly call gun owners "the core" of America (and I don't mean that negatively), but I'd say they represent America's mainstream.

The United States would be best served by a federal database of all guns, their owners and sales. That's no more intrusive to privacy than databases of vehicles and their owners.

And anyone who has been found guilty of even pointing a weapon, not just shooting it, at someone in anger -- and I'm not including legitimate self-defense -- should be banned from ever again legally owning a gun. Since those angry persons are often criminals who operate outside the realm of legality, I doubt such a law would make that much difference.

Gun owners who are law-abiding hunters and/or collectors will be the only ones really hurt by attempts at gun control beyond reason. I suspect it's impossible to keep guns and criminals apart, so any additional laws shouldn't penalize the innocent in order to hurt the unreachable.

From: http://www.t-g.com/blogs/davidmelson/entry/13698/

 

[ROMAK IV]

It seems to me most are avoiding the issue and just giving lip service to the 2nd Amendment, something that John Kerry did last election. It's easy enough to know the candidates positions. John McCain voted for the AWB renewal and tried to trade that vote for votes for his bill, a Gun Show Bill that would have effectively ended most gun shows and uncnstitutionally put them under the control of the federal government. Kerry and Edwards has missed over a year of votes in the Senate to campaign for president, yet both suspended the campaign for the express purpose of voting for the renewal of the AWB, the only vote they made in 2004. Barack helped pass the State of Illinois draconian gun laws, and Hillary has long supported gun control. She opposed the Bush nominees to the COnsumer Safety Council, because the nominee beleived the CSC had no jurisdiction over firearms. There was also the confirmation hearings for John Ashcroft, a former Senator and strong gunrights supporter. One of the stated rationale for Democrat senators to oppose his nomination to Attorney General was that Ashcroft was a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and thus wouldn't enforce federal gun laws.

 

[MD_Willington]

"I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters' rights to be protected," Edwards says. "But I don't think you need an AK-47 to hunt...There's some weapons that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."

Wonder if he knows what this is?





#2 ain't about duck hunting...


"It is the BILL of RIGHTS, not the BILL of NEEDS or WANTS"


They are skirting the issue, gun control is a poison pill until they get into the White House...

 

[308win]

"I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family…It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic," Obama has said.

Keep in mind this yahoo was in the Illinois Legislature and played a part in the legislature's failure to move any meaningful gun owner rights legislation during his terms. He better be squeaky clean or Hilary will out all of his warts if necessary.

 

[Matt King]

I couldn't find any direct comments about the issue by Hillary Rodham Clinton in a quick Google search .

WTH? A quick trip to ontheissues.org came up with thirteen quotes.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

"I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters' rights to be protected," Edwards says. "But I don't think you need an AK-47 to hunt...There's some weapons that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."

1. The second amendment has nothing to do with sportsmen and hunters. It's there to make sure the people have the best tools to overthrow a government (who works for the people, in case you forgot) if necessary.
2. I don't think you NEED a Yukon Denali to drive your kids to soccer practice. But if you WANT one, have at it. This is America, not a dictatorship. Stop trying to change it.

"I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family…It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic,"

1. It's hard for me to listen to someone who is so ignorant on the subject they can't even get the most basic terminology correct.
2. If you want to protect your family with a single shot .22 go for it. That may be all it takes if the unthinkable happens. I try to prepare for the worst case scenario. Nobody has ever prevailed in a gunfight and said "if only I had brought less ammo".

 

[pdowg881]

Is it that they don't know the true intent of the second ammendemnt or they don't admit it? A lot of them seem to think the justification for firearms and the 2nd ammendment revolves around sport shooting and hunting.

 

[v35]

"I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family…It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic," Obama has said.

I imagine every time BO opens his mouth his ratings go down. Barack, just shut up and look good.

"I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters' rights to be protected," Edwards says.

None of these guys get it. Did any of them even have benefit of a single high school history class?

There's some weapons that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."

*sigh* How about English, then?

The United States would be best served by a federal database of all guns, their owners and sales. That's no more intrusive to privacy than databases of vehicles and their owners.

I can't seem to find where the Constitution protects my God-given right to drive a Lexus.

I want my President to believe in the Constitution of the United States, and to preserve, protect and defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Simple, no?

And anyone who has been found guilty of even pointing a weapon, not just shooting it, at someone in anger ... should be banned from ever again legally owning a gun.

Uhh, seems to me that convicted felons are already prohibited from legally owning a gun.

But wait!

Since those angry persons are often criminals who operate outside the realm of legality, I doubt such a law would make that much difference.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately many elected representatives, and those seeking such office, don't.

 

[SoCalShooter]

What the canidates seem to not understand is exactly what everyone here has pointed out the second amendment is not about hunting its about defense against criminals, repression and tyranny...hmm...sounds kinda like defense against the government to me.

 

[MICHAEL T]

They need to know It's about protecting us from them and their kind. Our founding fathers were really smart and knew their kind would be along sooner or later. So they gave us the 2nd as a last measure .If voting failed.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I do not have to look very far to find bad candidates. I am still looking or THE right one. I AM a single issue voter, and I will vote for any, Democrat, republican, libertarian, green, pink, ( sorry, not red) that will support my favorite gun law. I have it posted as my signature.

 

[CoinMan]

"It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic," Obama has said."

Another instance of Osama Obama taking a staunch position on an issue about which he knows nothing. My favorite Obama quote came when a reporter asked him if he was sufficiently qualified to dictate our country's foreign policy. "Of course," he answered. "I majored in International Relations in college."

God help our country if that empty suit gets elected.

 

[Picknlittle]

Comments by Hilary

Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them

We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

Is the NRA standing in the way of preventing sales to criminals and the mentally unstable?

 

[Ala Dan]

With all of the BS these candidates are throwing at us, does anyone know
what ex-Governor Mitt Romneys stance on gun isssues is? I haven't been
able to find anything in print, regarding his stance.

 

[JWarren]

does anyone know what ex-Governor Mitt Romneys stance on gun isssues is?

He joined the NRA as a "Life Member" the month before he announced that he was running. Then told everyone "I'm a lifetime NRA member."

He's a MA politician, and I've always heard NEVER to trust your RKBA to any politician from MA.

-- John

 

[GunTech]

Romney has been a fan of gun restriuction until he miraculously changed his tune when he decided to run for president as a republican. He's about as pro-gun ad Rudi.

 

[benEzra]

Romney is an anti (pro-AWB). I don't see his stance on gun ownership as being significantly different from Sen. Clinton's.

There is a video clip around here somewhere of him calling for another AWB, but I don't have the link handy at the moment. He "supports hunting," though, just like every other gun prohibitionist...

 

[rdhood]

Is it that they don't know the true intent of the second ammendemnt or they don't admit it? A lot of them seem to think the justification for firearms and the 2nd ammendment revolves around sport shooting and hunting.

What the canidates seem to not understand is exactly what everyone here has pointed out the second amendment is not about hunting its about defense against criminals, repression and tyranny...hmm...sounds kinda like defense against the government to me.

They most certainly DO know what the 2nd amendment is all about. They speak like this because it is a way of framing the debate so that the people who don't know what the 2nd says will find their arguments to be common sense and compelling (even if false and treasonous in reality). If they can frame the argument that way , and make the Constitution a "living document", and get enough SCOTUS justices to go along, then they can gut the bill of rights and take, as power for the government, the rights that were reserved to the states and to the individual.


People don't strongly consider what the bill of rights is. They darned well know what free speech means and tout it as an unalienable right .... even in places it doesn't belong (like on private property, or in private electronic forums such as this). They darned well know that you don't have to speak to police or incriminate yourself. They know that the government can't house soldiers in your home. The same liberal that demands his free speech rights and would be livid if a LEO tossed his house without a warrant also demands that we all surrender our gun rights. He doesn't see those rights as related. They don't realize that a movement to limit one WILL result in limits of the other(s). Even though dictators and tyrants abound in this world, the idea that the 2nd protects the other 9 (Bill of Rights) doesn't even occur to them. If they can be persuaded that the 2nd protects a citizens "right to hunt", it can be legislated into obscurity.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Sorry folks, no political threads until further notice.