Obama's Gun Dance

Status
Not open for further replies.

chieftain

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,264
Location
The Free State of Arizona
I guess we just have to "HOPE" for "CHANGE". Cause Barack Hussein Obama sure will not tell us what he is hoping for or how or what he will change. As an individual who has publicly over the years sided with the Socialists on most everything, I frankly have very little "HOPE", should he get elected.

I wonder if Barack Hussein Obama would be for reasonable and safe restrictions on abortion too? Anyone want to make a bet on that one?

Go figure.

Fred

Obama's Gun Dance

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, April 7, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Sen. Obama has not stated his position.

Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well-regulated militia" cited in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the Draconian prohibition for Washington, D.C., fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.

That is a dance of many Democrats, revealed by my private conversations with the party's strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid re-enacting the fate of many Democratic candidates who lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled off the floor a bill for a District of Columbia congressional seat in order to save Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.

Hillary Clinton has extolled the Second Amendment, though not as far as Obama. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee press conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. ... There is an individual right to bear arms."

That implies that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty's brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I deduced in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law."

On March 24, a reader e-mailed The Washington Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee press conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said he was: "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."

That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right ... he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," the specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again, without success, last week to learn Obama's position before writing this column.

Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from a radical young state legislator a few years ago. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association (NRA) grades him (and Clinton) at "F." There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington, D.C.
 
I believe in the First Amendment but only with reasonable restrictions.

Freedom of the Press is a foundation of this country but it doesn't mean that newspapers should be allowed to print anything they want.

Freedom of Religion is one of our most precious rights but that doesn't mean we need to allow all religions.

The right of people to assemble freely is one of our birthrights but I hate crowds booing me and I want it stopped.

Yes, I am running for President of the United States. I'm practicing sounding like a Democratic candidate. After learning how many millions the Clintons made from their business friends in just a few years, I can see that the Democratic Party is where the big bucks are. It's the party of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the unfortunate. If you aren't one they'll make you one.
 
I believe he intends what he said he'd do back in the good old days of the 90s, back when he didn't have to convince anyone he wasn't a leftwing radical. Racking up a US Senate voting record ranked in the 99th percentile of liberalosity, to the LEFT of Sens. Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold, and Kennedy, that takes some doing. Imagine bans on pretty much all of your centerfire stuff, maybe even restrictions on how much rimfire stuff you can have (if you're lucky enough to get a permit to own a gun of any kind). Forget about actually being allowed to use a gun for any kind of defensive purpose. Forget Castle Doctrine, if a rapist enters your house and scuffs his knee you'll be charged with harming him. Does that sound bad? That's Ted Kennedy bad, Obama is to the left of that.

Hussein Obama can say what he wants now, as I think I'm smart enough to figure out what he is even if he doesn't think we're smart enough to tell.
 
Hussein Obama can say what he wants now, as I think I'm smart enough to figure out what he is even if he doesn't think we're smart enough to tell.

X2. Obama is a far left loon trying to come off as a moderate to get elected. Once in office his true colors will come out. "Change" and "Hope" can be directly translated into Higher Taxes, Less Freedom, Income Redistribution, more Government Regulation and Intrusion and more Gun Control.
 
Obama is very clearly on the record here in Illinois (as a State Senator) as saying that no one should have a CCW. Just that fact alone is enough for me to know that everything he's saying while running for president is total stuff.
 
The last time someone in John McCain's campaign repeatedly said "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" at a campaign event McCain immediately apologized for it, because McCain is trying to take the high road in this campaign. He knows that emphasizing Obama's middle name is needlessly inflammatory. I wonder why you feel compelled to do it?
 
I believe in the First Amendment but only with reasonable restrictions.

Freedom of the Press is a foundation of this country but it doesn't mean that newspapers should be allowed to print anything they want.

And they can't print anything they want. They're bound by libel laws.

Freedom of Religion is one of our most precious rights but that doesn't mean we need to allow all religions.

And we don't. There have been cases that decided religious practices don't allow for things such as animal sacrifice, smoking marijuana, or marrying multiple partners.

The right of people to assemble freely is one of our birthrights but I hate crowds booing me and I want it stopped.

Often an assembly in a public place requires a permit, which is an anathema to freedom.

I agree with your position overall, but we all have to accept that no right is absolute. None. Not ever.

Even the single most basic right, the right to live, can been taken away by the state after due process of law.
 
The last time someone in John McCain's campaign repeatedly said "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" at a campaign event McCain immediately apologized for it, because McCain is trying to take the high road in this campaign. He knows that emphasizing Obama's middle name is needlessly inflammatory. I wonder why you feel compelled to do it?

His entire name has the same twang to it. Should one not call hm by any of his names? Are our little gun grabbing socialist's names not to be uttered because they are 'inflammatory'? They're his names, even the one in the middle. I didn't pick 'em, and nobody else around here did either. His parents did.

PC rears its had again. :rolleyes:
 
The last time someone in John McCain's campaign repeatedly said "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" at a campaign event McCain immediately apologized for it, because McCain is trying to take the high road in this campaign. He knows that emphasizing Obama's middle name is needlessly inflammatory. I wonder why you feel compelled to do it?

It's his name, isn't it? Don't we call the current President by his middle name? If he doesn't like having "Hussein" as a middle name, he can go change it. It's just his actual name, it's not like the made-up names many of Hussein Obama's supporters give to the current President. PC police indeed.
 
Everyone who demonstratively uses Obama's middle name knows exactly what they're doing. "His mom named him that, just calling him what his mom calls him" is a weak excuse, and you know it. When was the last time you said "George Walker Bush" or "Ronald Wilson Reagan" or "John Sidney McCain." You don't. Use use "Hussein" in order to be - not so subtly - suggestive about, oh, his origins, his lack of Americanness, whatever.

That's fine, say what you want. But you are being disingenuous if you don't own up to the political intent of demonstratively using his middle name. Nothing PC about it.

McCain knows this and won't have any of it in his campaign. That shows character that I can respect.
 
His own uncle Teddy can't get his name right - he called him Osama Obama at one point. I'd figure that far worse than using his given full name at an opposition campaign event..
 
Let's hope the good people of PA can see that this urban liberal is speaking through his @ss when he says he's pro-gun.
 
Saw him trying to cozy up to the Hunting people of PA, he does not "GET" that firearm ownership and use is just not for "HUNTERS"
 
Call him what you want...

...just know that when you call him "Hussein" you're suggesting all sorts of things about him - about his origins, his supposed lack of genuine Americanness, his ties to Islam, whatever. That's perfectly fine, so long as you accept that that's your intention. Because again, you almost certainly don't refer to McCain as "John Sidney McCain" or Thompson as "Fred Dalton Thompson". Your stress of Obama's middle name is intentional, and for the above reasons. It's a slander, nothing more.

As for me, I'll take the high road with John McCain, who rejects this kind of innuendo and subtle slander from his supporters.

This does not mean I support Obama, and his position of guns is highly problematic, to say the least. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. My own sense is that he's not particularly interested in the issue, but is trying to figure out how not to unduly scare people like us while at the same time not alienating his own constituency. It's frustrating, to say the least, from someone who's selling a supposedly "new" kind of politics.

It's just that I won't lower myself into the gutter by slandering him by deliberately using his middle name, especially when I don't use the middle names of other politicians. In fact, I think that doing so automatically delegitimizes what is by all means a legitimate critique of his position. "Oh, just the ranting of another right-wing, gun-loving bigot." In other words, it weakens your perfectly justified criticism of Obama while at the same time lowering the level of political discourse.
 
Freedom of Religion is one of our most precious rights but that doesn't mean we need to allow all religions.

Which ones get banned, and who gets to do the banning.

I have a problem with a religion that clearly states in its doctrine that the followers have a duty to enslave or kill anyone who doesn't convert.

However, I also have a problem with any doctrine that clearly states we should stone to death anyone wearing a poly-cotton blend.

Careful what you ask for, you might just get it. I kind of like freedom of religion providing that such a religion doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, or break the law of the land.
 
Careful what you ask for, you might just get it. I kind of like freedom of religion providing that such a religion doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, or break the law of the land.

Be careful what you say. The "law of the land" is a fickle thing...
 
..just know that when you call him "Hussein" you're suggesting all sorts of things about him - about his origins, his supposed lack of genuine Americanness, his ties to Islam, whatever. That's perfectly fine, so long as you accept that that's your intention. Because again, you almost certainly don't refer to McCain as "John Sidney McCain" or Thompson as "Fred Dalton Thompson". Your stress of Obama's middle name is intentional, and for the above reasons. It's a slander, nothing more.

As for me, I'll take the high road with John McCain, who rejects this kind of innuendo and subtle slander from his supporters.

This does not mean I support Obama, and his position of guns is highly problematic, to say the least. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. My own sense is that he's not particularly interested in the issue, but is trying to figure out how not to unduly scare people like us while at the same time not alienating his own constituency. It's frustrating, to say the least, from someone who's selling a supposedly "new" kind of politics.

It's just that I won't lower myself into the gutter by slandering him by deliberately using his middle name, especially when I don't use the middle names of other politicians. In fact, I think that doing so automatically delegitimizes what is by all means a legitimate critique of his position. "Oh, just the ranting of another right-wing, gun-loving bigot." In other words, it weakens your perfectly justified criticism of Obama while at the same time lowering the level of political discourse.

Oh for crying out loud. Get over yourself. Hussein is his middle name. Are you the thought police now? So glad you did a mind-meld and told me what I'm thinking. Are you one of these people who thinks the N-word is ok only if a special class of people says it but it's racist if someone else says it?

So I am curious, what's someone's agenda if they call the current president "W"?

And in any event, perhaps "Hussein" is relevant to a the background of the most liberal gun-grabber in the US Senate who belongs to a "church" where the preacher makes claims that we deserved 911 and worse. He wouldn't be the only guy by the name of Hussein that felt that way.
 
John F Kennedy
George Dubya Bush
Lee Harvey Oswald

There have been others. Some people just become known with their vestigial names intact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top