Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Obama to John Lott:"I don't believe that people should be able to own guns".

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Winchester 73, Apr 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Interestingly, Lott meet Obama in Chicago in 1996, when the Senator was a virtual unknown.

    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsObamaGuns040708.html

    Freedomnomics

    Article published Monday , April 07, 2008

    Obama and Guns: Two Different Views


    By John R. Lott, Jr.


    Something happens to Democrats on the gun issue when they run for president. For John Kerry during 2004, it was awkwardly posing in brand new hunting gear at a seemingly endless series of hunting photo-ops.

    But in what will probably be the most improbable change, the Politico reported on Saturday that Barack Obama was making a big play for gun votes in Pennsylvania. It is not particularly surprising that this change is occurring with the crucial Pennsylvania primary soon approaching.

    With about one million of the country’s 12.5 million hunters, Pennsylvania is number one in the nation in the amount of time its citizens spend hunting. With about 600,000 people with permits to carry concealed handguns, Pennsylvania also has more permit holders than any other state.

    Others, such as Jim Kessler, vice president for policy with Third Way, a progressive think tank, view Obama as starting to position himself for the general election.

    Yet, it should be a hard sell.

    Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.

    For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.”

    Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign “flatly denied” Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

    But then IVI provided Politico the questionnaire with Obama’s own handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI’s board of directors, some of whom have worked on Obama’s past campaigns, told Politico that “I always believed those to be his views, what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

    But the IVI questionnaire isn’t the only one out there.

    In 1998, another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didn’t ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

    Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all handguns and the vast majority of rifles sold in the United States.

    In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

    In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

    I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

    When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

    If taken literally, Obama’s statement to me was closer to what the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating that Obama's bans would extend well beyond handguns.

    Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

    Even Hillary Clinton disagrees with him on this.

    The Obama campaign’s strategy largely follows 2003 surveys produced by Democratic pollster Mark Penn showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on."

    It was the same strategy that all the Democratic presidential candidates seemed to follow in 2004.

    Earlier this year, Karlyn Bowman at the American Enterprise Institute said: “The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on the issue well. . . . the right to be able to own a gun seems to be firmly held, and I think that's why both candidates say what they say."

    In practice, saying that Obama now believes that the Second Amendment means that there is an individual right to own guns doesn’t mean anything if it can’t even prevent guns from being banned. And even today, despite the pressure from the Pennsylvania primary, Obama is unwilling to state that DC’s or Chicago’s ban on guns are unconstitutional.

    Obama’s website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: “hunting and target shooting.” The notion that people might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn’t something that he sees as legitimate.

    On both his Iraq and trade policies, Obama has already faced the embarrassing situations where his top advisors have had to tell people in other countries not to worry because he doesn’t believe what he is telling American voters.

    With guns, it sure looks like Obama is again telling voters what they want to hear, not what he plans on doing.

    *John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
     
  2. XDKingslayer

    XDKingslayer member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,811
    Location:
    Port Charlotte, Fl.
    It's not just Obama. They all tailor their answers to the mass voting group.

    How do you tell a politician is lying?
     
  3. kfranz

    kfranz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,155
    Location:
    WI
    Their lips are moving.
     
  4. springmom

    springmom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,599
    Location:
    Spring TX
    IBTL....

    He doesn't think I should be able to own guns.....I don't think he ought to be able to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    Springmom
     
  5. 308win

    308win Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2,918
    Location:
    Ohio - The Heart of it All
    Unfortunately between 44 and 47% disagree with you.
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
  7. SavageMOA

    SavageMOA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Are we screwed? I want an honest response here. Are we screwed as far as gun ownership goes if Obama gets into the White House? Or is there something we can do even if he gets into office?
     
  8. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    Look to Heller.
     
  9. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797

    I think if we win Heller vs. DC in the SCOTUS, it will be a big deal in helping stop a lot of laws they would attempt to make if either Hilary or Obama got into office.

    The fact that they want to use "the communitie's needs" won't help anymore, when it is solidly stated that the Constitution is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

    They will still try, but, it will be a lot harder.

    And it will change their platform. Before the elections, you will see Hillary and Obama saying their all for gun ownership (albeit with "common sense" restrictions) and you'll hear stories about how Hillary used to hunt with her dad.
     
  10. SavageMOA

    SavageMOA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Care to elaborate on that?
     
  11. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,566
    Assuming that he will try to get anti-gun bills through Congress in the constitutional manner, he might fail. Even a Democratic majority does not guarantee an anti-gun majority,or support in Congress for any given legislation.

    One problem he will have is that his supporters are so worked up on several issues (primarily the war in Iraq) that if he doesn't take immediate and drastic action minutes after the inauguration, he could face vigorous dissent from his own former supporters.

    If, as some of his supporters are implying, he chooses to be "progressive" and try to bypass Congress and the Courts by issuing decrees and "executive orders", there will likewise be some problems.

    Either way, I fear for the continued existence of the nation. FWIW, I have grave doubts about his claims that he does not share the views of his "spiritual mentor", the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; I suspect he shares all those views but is smart enough to conceal his real thoughts until he is elected.

    Jim
     
  12. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    With checks and balances(thanks to the FF)the executive branch can only do so much.
    If we vote enough pro-gun candidates into the House and Senate this year, and the SCOTUS remains at least 5-4 in our favor Obama(or Clinton)will not be able to do significant damage.
    Says W 73 ,the eternal optimist.Anyway,McCain will win.That's a little better.
     
  13. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    Are you joking? When Barack Obama is elected the next President of the United States of America, the Democrats will control the presidency and both houses of the Congress.

    There are three branches of the federal government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, and the Democratic Party will control two out of the three. Have you ever seen the Democratic Party at the national level even tolerate individual gun ownership? I haven't.

    Yes, you will be able to do something even then. You can wave goodbye to what you thought were your Second Amendment rights, and you can share that wonderful dream that Obama promises. Go to sleep and dream with the rest of the country. Or you can wake up right now and vote so that a Democrat might not become President.

    Obama listened to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preach hatred for 20 years and said he wasn't paying attention. That's your next President, a man who at best does not pay attention.
     
  14. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    But Robert, why not just bitch about how John McCain isn't the reincarnation of Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan all rolled into one, and vote Libertarian?

    Won't that get us more results in the end?
     
  15. yinyangdc

    yinyangdc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    OK, I will make a difference. I will vote for the Republican candidate. I am in California. Oh, never mind!
     
  16. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    Well, a Libertarian vote will result in the same outcome as a vote for Obama.

    Ash
     
  17. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    If the candidate is Obama, it will be worth voting for McCain even in California.

    Note that Hillary won the primary here by a good amount. College kids who aren't registered to vote and all the aging hippies in SF are not enough to win an election, and McCain may well appeal to many Hillary primary supporters more than Obama.
     
  18. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,717
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    If he did that, he would no longer be President, but a dictator and tyrant.
     
  19. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Yeah. No reason to think anyone would ever try that.:p
     
  20. RP88

    RP88 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,704
    no, he would be out of office. C'mon, there are procedures that even the democrat majority will have to follow.

    I think we've grown a little too paranoid because of the eight-year cluster-screw that has been the Bush administration. If we win Heller, and if gun owners keep getting a bit more enthusiastic as they have been, then the democrats will simply have to leave guns alone if they wish to keep looking good, and will opt to just screw up everything else instead (health care, taxes, the war even more, etc. etc.)
     
  21. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    I think you have a short memory.
     
  22. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,978
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Ah, ha, ha; tee, hee, hee; little brown bugs how I luv thee...

    Ticks, that is. Polyticks.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page