Obama Discriminates Against Gun Owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
It'd be nice that if people are going to post stories, to follow the rules and actually post the story and not just the link.
 
Is there a rule here on not posting links?

If so, i will follow the rule here.

But I almost always, on this board and others, post the link and not just copy and paste the article. I just thinks it fair to the writer of the article and to the original website.

Thanks
 
Oh, you provide the link.

But C&P the story too.

The relevant section:

Posting links: Don't post a link to a news article and let it go at that. Please post the first paragraph or a summary of the article. That would help members decide if they want to go to the linked article for the remainder of the story.
Click to expand...

So no need to post the entire thing, but give us something.
 
While Obama made every attempt during the campaign to shut up about guns, and the media aided him in not digging on the issue, it's known that Obama hates gun owners. He considers us an anachronism, and wants to ban or so heavily regulate what we do, that the number of 80 million goes down to maybe 8 million (if that).

It's in all his actions in Illinois, and his states positions (before most of them were removed) from his website.

His statement that we "cling to our guns" is one of many little hints that he has given of his contempt. This is why I refuse to call him the President of my country. You have to promise to uphold and defend the constitution. He is already trying to eliminate a big part of it. This attempt at governmental hiring apartheid (yes, I use that word for a reason), is just the beginning.

Mr. Obama, I hope does something very bad (personal life, graft, corruption, simply a huge error) making him very unpopular very quickly. Because, otherwise it will take a long time to fix the havoc he will cause.

When he won the election, I wondered if he would attempt a more moderate course, or a more extreme one. All his moves of late speak of a consolidation of power on the left end of the nation's political spectrum and a virtual block out of the right.

Let's try to find anything and everything we can on him. He rose to power in the political cesspool of Chicago. His business dealings (especially concerning the Resko affair) appear less than on the up and up. We got to find something on him (there has to be), and paste him to a wall with it.
 
The only discernable reason this question about handgun, rifle or shotgun ownership would be asked is the same reason employers used to ask job seekers about their race, gender, age or ethnic background – that is, solely for the purpose of discriminating against the applicant.
Click to expand...

There is a long thread about this application. I think that most of us concluded that the questions were not about discrimination, but avoiding embarrassment for the incoming administration.

For example, this is pretty clearly the "Dick Cheney Question":

Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to cite other threads, but the title was:

  • Obama asks gun questions on his application for employment.

Mike
 
I did go and read the story. No wonder it's called worldnutdaily.

There is no comparison between asking someone's religion (prohibited) and asking someone's status as a firearms owner (permitted). Nor we do know that if someone answered yes that this would automatically exclude him from a job.
If someone doesn't want to answer the question he shouldn't apply for the job.
 
This has a high likelihood of getting locked but I just wanted to add some sarcasm first:

President-elect Obama, as the first non-hunting, non-gun-owning president
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet he has a nice cherry gun safe with a collection that would make many of us weep.

It's pretty easy to oppose gun ownership in order to help get elected to the white house; you're guaranteed protection from the secret service for the rest of your life. In fact he's probably surrounded by more guns at any given moment than most of us own.
 
Um, I'd have to disagree with you there Bubba. It might be technically legal to ask that question , but it hasn't been done in the past, and is weird. What's more, it doesn't just ask "Do you own a gun?" It asks to provide a registration list. I seriously doubt it's legal for the government to ask that question.
 
Why is it illegal?
So what if it's "weird"? From Obama's perspective I guess it isn't weird. He can ask what he wants and he can hire whomever he wants, within legal limits. If he wants to eliminate gun owners from his hirees, he is free to do so. We didn't vote for him anyway.
 
I didn't say it was illegal. I said it is weird, inasmuch that no President has ever put that on an application before.

And as for a "He can hire who he wants" opinion, Obama is a government employee hiring other government employees. He isn't a private employer.

He shouldn't be allowed to eliminate gun owners from his hiring process, anymore than Bush should have been able to hold off gays (based upon simply that factor. Doubt many queers voted for Bush).

What's more, it sets a bad precedent. And, when the bans come, he isn't going to have any gun owners around to tell him why it's a bad idea. (Not that he would listen anyway. For all the Obamaganda out there, he isn't a wise man who listens to all, and carefully makes decisions. He is an ideologue who only listens to people likely to help him advance an agenda of E.U. style socialism)
 
Did you not write:
I seriously doubt it's legal for the government to ask that question.
Click to expand...
?

It makes no difference whether he is a gov't employer or a private employer. He can discriminate on any legal basis he wants, including gun owners.

And when the ban comes (more like if), he will be the one pushing for it. So what does he care what gunowners say anyway?
 
If you filled out an employment application, you know that certain blatantly discriminatory questions can't be asked. For example, you can't be asked if you are black, white or Asian. You can't be asked what your age is, what your sex is, whether or not you're married, whether you have pre-existing medical conditions, or if you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew. You can't be asked if you have been arrested
Click to expand...

Ummmmmmm OK this make absolutily NO sense because in the past 6 months I've filled out applications to various different places of employment and they ALL ask those questions except the religious one.
 
-----
Obama discriminates – against gun owners

--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Brad O'Leary
© 2008

Try and remember the last time you sat down for a job interview.

If you filled out an employment application, you know that certain blatantly discriminatory questions can't be asked. For example, you can't be asked if you are black, white or Asian. You can't be asked what your age is, what your sex is, whether or not you're married, whether you have pre-existing medical conditions, or if you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew. You can't be asked if you have been arrested, or if you're a member of the Knights of Columbus, the National Organization for Women or National Council of La Raza.

All of those questions have been deemed to be discriminatory and, therefore, out of bounds for employers to ask. However, in examining the first document created by President-elect Barack Obama, the "White House Personnel Data Questionnaire" – which is a model that can used by all agencies of the federal government – he has made it clear that discriminatory practices are to be a hallmark of his administration and that he particularly intends to discriminate against hunters and gun owners.

It is remarkable the mainstream media are ignoring the implications of this politically unacceptable and intrusive questionnaire. After all, that same media obsessively covered alleged political intrusions involving hiring practices under the U.S. Justice Department when it was headed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

One of Obama's 63 questions for applicants who wish to work for the federal government is:

Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

The only discernable reason this question about handgun, rifle or shotgun ownership would be asked is the same reason employers used to ask job seekers about their race, gender, age or ethnic background – that is, solely for the purpose of discriminating against the applicant. Indeed, this marks the first time a president has ever asked potential administration employees if they are exercising one of their constitutional rights as part of the weeding-out process.

And yes, the question is almost certainly designed for "weeding-out." Given his long history of hostility toward gun owners, it is highly unlikely that the president-elect is searching for able servants who answer "yes" to his gun ownership question. After all, this is the same Barack Obama who:
  • endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership;
  • endorsed a 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition; and
  • supports mandatory firearms registration (and in the questionnaire, Obama makes it clear that this includes handguns, shotguns and rifles).

Obama also asks how the handgun, rifle or shotgun is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage – bowing to the utterly false notion that firearms are inherently dangerous or their owners prone to misuse. This would mean if you've ever used a firearm to protect yourself, you must describe the situation. This question seems to indicate President-elect Obama still holds an animus toward the idea of self-defense, and it reconfirms his vote in the Illinois Legislature to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of homeowners who use banned firearms to defend themselves and their loved ones from violent criminals.

Appallingly, the question also asks applicants to submit their gun "ownership and registration information." To whom this private information is to be given is unclear, but this is an outrageous request considering only seven states in our nation, including Obama's home state of Illinois, require some form of gun registration. Firearms owners and freedom advocates have vehemently fought, and for the most part successfully, any form of gun registration. They wage this battle for good reason. The most horrific episodes in the history of the world have taught us that gun registration invariably leads to gun confiscation, as well as wholesale massacres and serious government abuse of law-abiding citizenry.

That Obama would ask for gun registration information tells us one of two things. Either he is completely ignorant of the near universal right of American gun owners not to be forced to register their firearm with the government (this is possible), or the president-elect is tipping his hand to law-abiding gun owners and revealing the agenda he has in store for them (this is more likely).

In effect, what President-elect Obama has accomplished with this question is a mandatory gun registration program for prospective federal employees – a list of gun owners that would be available to government agencies at the federal level. And if that were not intrusive enough, he is even requiring potential employees to register their family members' guns as well.

This question demands answers, though not the answers Obama is seeking. If he is truly interested in transparency, Obama should disclose why this question is in his questionnaire, who drafted it and what purpose it serves.

Otherwise, reasonable people are left to believe that the sole purpose of this questionnaire is to help our newly elected Discriminator in Chief weed out law-abiding citizens – some 80 million Americans – who, as he put it in San Francisco earlier this year, "cling to their guns."

If President-elect Obama truly wants to bring all Americans together, he should not support a policy designed to tear us apart.

There is no question that if Barack Obama can get away with registering the guns of his federal appointees and their family members, then all federal agencies may follow the same road. There would also be little stopping state and local government agencies, and even private-sector employers (20 percent of whom believe only the police and military should own guns) from doing the same. If Obama can discriminate against gun owners at the highest level of American government, then there is no reason to believe that lesser government agencies cannot adopt the same stance – and refuse employment to gun owners who seek government employment as teachers, social workers, Peace Corps volunteers or volunteers in the "civilian national security force" Obama has called for.

President-elect Obama, as the first non-hunting, non-gun-owning president, needs to make it clear that he will not discriminate against this core group of Americans who exercise their God-given constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

--------------------------------------------------------

Brad O'Leary is the author of "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values," which details President-elect Obama's plans for the next four years. Buy this explosive book today at the special price of $4.95.

Copyright 1997-2008
All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.
Click to expand...
-----
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Normally when I'm filling out forms there is a section for this sort of stuff and the section has in small italicized print that the section is not required to be completed.
 
Mr. Obama, I hope does something very bad (personal life, graft, corruption, simply a huge error) making him very unpopular very quickly. Because, otherwise it will take a long time to fix the havoc he will cause.
Click to expand...

He already has. He admitted to drug use in NY while attending college, he was know to socialize with a terrorist, Bill Ayres, not to mention others, and trained ACORN volunteers how to intimidate bankers on giving mortages that cause our present situation with our falling economy. Just to mention a few.
What I don't understand is, if he applied to become a police officer, federal agent or even a school teacher, he would never pass the background investigation, and be disqualified for the above mentioned things. How in God's name does he qualify to be the President of the US, our Commander in Chief?...Something is really wrong here!..:eek:
 
"he was know to socialize with a terrorist, Bill Ayres, not to mention others, and trained ACORN volunteers how to intimidate bankers on giving mortages that cause our present situation with our falling economy. Just to mention a few.
What I don't understand is, if he applied to become a police officer, federal agent or even a school teacher, he would never pass the background investigation, and be disqualified for the above mentioned things."

Holy cow, where's my tin foil hat?:eek:
 
Duplicate Topic

It does appear, as mentioned above, that we already have a thread running on this topic.

Please refer there for further posting.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Interesting little article
Replies
9
Views
578
dbarile
D
S
  • Locked
Burglary For Dummies
Replies
4
Views
568
Starship1st
S
F
  • Locked
The Red Coats are back?
Replies
0
Views
442
funnybone
F
F
  • Locked
Off-duty cop kills man in bar fight
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
5K
Justin
Justin
M
  • Locked
Chuck Norris prefers Gun over Side Kick!
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Mrs. Armoredman
M
Back
Top