Obama Claims He Supports Individual Gun Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
Allow me to summarize:

Obama - anti-gun.

Hillary - anti-gun.

McCain - anti gun.

This kind of stuff will kill us.

There is no equating McCain with Hilary and Obama.
I am not a fan of McCain, but making a rational decision means looking at his actual record and his platform and making an intelligent comparison.

"I won't make political alliances with anyone unless they support 100% of my agenda" is a losing strategy.
 
Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns.

Is this statement a self-contradiction or what? Obama and Clinton are both trying to wine and dine gun owners. Neither of them have a record of action to back it up.

There is no equating McCain with Hilary and Obama.
McCain is a half-a$$ed Republican at best. Our 2nd A rights are still not safe with him. Lets not mention that we can plan on another 4-8 years of war as well (1000 years according to McCain himself)... AKA: Can you say "total fiscal devastation"?

If you ask me, all three are a compromise in one form or another.
 
He is no more for individual gun rights as I am for getting hit in the head with a baseball bat.

He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.


This California law is going to cause problems for the long term. I can't believe Arnold signed it.
 
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation"

I didn't know rights could be "regulated" . I thought a right is a right , period.
 
Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns.


At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month. :what: :what:
:banghead:



:evil:
 
Just more double talking from politicians. As long as "gun free zones" exist so will target rich environments. Target rich environments allow cowards to become headlines for a little while and give anti gun politicians fodder. Unfortunately, they rarely think of how one armed individual may have made a difference but gun free zone policies made that impossible. :banghead:
 

1) Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns.

2) At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

3) "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said.


http://www.examiner.com/a-1223172~Obama_Supports_Individual_Gun_Rights.html

**********

1) Premise: Obama will not take your guns away.

2) Premise: Obama supports DC and Chicago-style gun bans.

3) Premise: Obama would allow municipalities to stomp all over your 2AM Rights, like Chicago and DC has, like San Francisco, Madison WI, Milwaukee WI and Wauwatosa WI want to! :uhoh:

Conclusion: Slippery politician. He won't mess with your gun rights--he'll empower your local Libs to do it! :eek:

--Ray

**********

Oh sure, Obama told Iowa radio listeners last year that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that homeowners should have a firearm "to protect their home and their family." But then in the next breath, he says, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic [sic]."

In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents."6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.

Obama has also taken a strong position in favor of the Clinton semi-auto ban which sunset in 2004. "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law," Obama said.

Well, there's nothing that's "common sense" about the Clinton ban. Not only did it outlaw almost 200 types of firearms, legislators like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tried to amend the law (before it sunset) to include additional types of semi-autos -- even banning classic (wood-stock) long guns such as the Remington shotgun which Senator John Kerry received as a gift during his 2004 presidential bid.

http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm

**********

You snooze you lose, people! Don't be a tourist in your own country! Do whatever you can to actively derail this leftist-socialist, while you still have an active voice. Wishes don't count! :fire:

--Ray
 
And if I say I support Obama, but, it doesn't mean I'll vote for 'em. Talk is always cheap, especially coming from a politician with the most liberal record in the Senate.
 
There is no plan of action. This is not activism. It's more preaching to the choir. It belongs in General Discussion, where it maybe would get locked for being politico. Unless I missed some kind of actual suggestion from the OP to act.

If it offends you so much just move along. Geez.

Unless of course you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
 
McCain voted to close the loopholes in gunshows, something I agree with. Requiring a background check for private sales is not anti gun, it is common sense.If I sold a gun to someone I didn't know and it turned out to be a criminal who murdered someone with it, I would find it hard to live with myself.I've sold two guns at gun shows, both to ffl holders.Had cash offers for more money on both by "civilians"
which I turned down.
 
McCain voted to close the loopholes in gunshows, something I agree with. Requiring a background check for private sales is not anti gun, it is common sense.If I sold a gun to someone I didn't know and it turned out to be a criminal who murdered someone with it, I would find it hard to live with myself.I've sold two guns at gun shows, both to ffl holders.Had cash offers for more money on both by "civilians"
which I turned down.

Years ago I have a revolver for sale. It was advertised in a local bulletin board. A guy called and said that he wanted to buy it. We agreed on a price and a time to make the deal when he got paid. For some reason I had a question and I called the number that he left. His mother answered the phone and wanted to know why I wanted to speak to him. When I told her that he was going to buy a gun from me she told me that he had a mental problem and was not allowed to own a gun.

I have thought a lot of times how close I came to making a big, big mistake. That is why I will never sell a gun to someone that I do not know unless it goes through a FFL dealer.

Obama is not a friend of gun owners, decent moral people, or the United States of America. End of story.
 
.If I sold a gun to someone I didn't know and it turned out to be a criminal who murdered someone with it, I would find it hard to live with myself

Have to wonder if you feel the same way about selling cars which may be used later in a crime . Do you go through a car dealer to sell it?How about a chainsaw (or any other tool) that may get used in a crime . Do you go through the local hardware store for the sale of the item ?

Just strikes me funny that people will get so nervous about a gun sale , but never think about the guy buying their old car . How many DUIs has the guy had , how many vehicular manslaughter charges have been filed on them . Is he even legal to drive? How many people run a "background check" on the guy buying their old sedan?

Not saying anyone is wrong for NOT selling their guns face to face , but just seems odd that people will sell anything else without a thought as to what it could be used for .
 
Not saying anyone is wrong for NOT selling their guns face to face , but just seems odd that people will sell anything else without a thought as to what it could be used for .

I wouldn't want to sell anything to anyone that would be used in any crime. But, guns and gun sales are under the microscope far more than any other thing. Do you not think that a shooting/robbery etc with a gun sold between two private parties would bring a lot of media attention?
 
I wouldn't want to sell anything to anyone that would be used in any crime. But, guns and gun sales are under the microscope far more than any other thing. Do you not think that a shooting/robbery etc with a gun sold between two private parties would bring a lot of media attention?

I agree that , I too would not want to sell anything to anybody else that would be used in a crime . But , the only way to be sure someone doesn't buy something that will be used in a crime at a later date , is to not have anything sold at all .

I refuse to be made to feel guilty for the actions of another . I'm tired of fingers being pointed at anyone but the perpetrator of a crime . It's not my fault, not your fault, and not societies fault that someone chooses to use a firearm to commit a crime . The blame lies squarely with the individual who did it .

Just my .02 YMMV
 
He is no more for individual gun rights as I am for getting hit in the head with a baseball bat.

Reminds me of every other presidents for the past 40 years. Even the ones that campaign on a platform of gunrights and conservatism have turned around and stabbed gun owners in the back, regardless of party loyality.
 
McCain voted to close the loopholes in gunshows, something I agree with. Requiring a background check for private sales is not anti gun, it is common sense.
You're calling for registration, de jure or de facto.

If you don't think that's a problem, tell everybody what it takes to LEGALLY move to Chicago with handguns.

If you're for gun registration, then there's no reason for you to be against poll taxes and "literacy" tests for voting.
 
Replies To Statements Made...

"This is activism how again?"

"There is no plan of action. This is not activism. It's more preaching to the choir. It belongs in General Discussion, where it maybe would get locked for being politico. Unless I missed some kind of actual suggestion from the OP to act."

*****

We were/are in the middle of primary elections. Assuming you're a good citizen, and not just a tourist in your own country, you were/are going to cast a vote, yes? :scrutiny:

If you care to protect your gun rights, our plan of action is that you not vote for Obama! :uhoh: We suggest that you vote for McCain. :what:

That's activist enough for me! Or do you require that I knock on your door with a leaflet? :rolleyes:

--Ray
 
I think we can all agree that obama and clinton will do what they can to take our guns. i think mccain is not as anti-gun as we might think. the only really "anti gun" position that i remember him taking is closing the "gun show loophole" but i actually think that is a good idea. remember the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia. please tell me if there is something i have missed with mccain. remember, he is the connsumate politician and he knows he needs the conservative base to get elected. i don't care if he likes guns or gun owners as long as he realizes he won't be elected WITHOUT gun owners. that being said, ron paul was my choice.
 
I agree with your take on McCain; he's the astute politician alright.

As it gets down to it, a vote for Ron Paul or Huckabee is merely a symbolic gesture, and a wasted vote.

We do indeed, at times pick from the lesser of two evils. Unlike Hilary or Obama, because it's going to be one of them, McCain is not after your guns. He supports not the magazine ban, or the assault weapons ban. He does believe in throwing the book at offenders.

I also agree that it makes no sense to throttle the local gun shops with regulations, and allow a traveling gun show a free for all.

--Ray
 
As it gets down to it, a vote for Ron Paul or Huckabee is merely a symbolic gesture, and a wasted vote.

So if i vote for Paul, it's a waste, and if i vote for McCain, it's a vote well spent because he would win anyhow?

Lashlarue said:
Requiring a background check for private sales is not anti gun, it is common sense.If I sold a gun to someone I didn't know and it turned out to be a criminal who murdered someone with it, I would find it hard to live with myself.

You don't have to be an FFL holder to do a background check, AFAIK. Or better yet, sell only to CHL holders. It's not just a background check; your gun is to be logged with the dealer and with the police in some states. The transaction must be on file with the dealer for 20 years, and in the meantime, the BATFE has access to it. If the dealer quits before 20 years, the BATFE keeps their books. In Oregon, police are supposed to keep the record for no more than five years. Suspiciously, there's no penalty for keeping it on file for longer. You are marked every time you buy a gun.
 
"So if i vote for Paul, it's a waste, and if i vote for McCain, it's a vote well spent because he would win anyhow?"

*****

No. That's not what I said. And I'm not interested in mere verbal juggling.

If I were as confident as you that McCain will win, I wouldn't have posted this at all. I see a real danger to our 2AM rights. And as usual, I see a sleepy complacency in the Conservative side.

Voting for someone that can't win, in a close race, and this will be close, is as good as not showing up to vote at all. It is a symbolic gesture. You may as well be green and save the gas!

--Ray
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top