Obama's Stance on gun control

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

Pay attention to this part..



That is a classic bait and switch...... Fully Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1930's, and the hated AW Ban did NOT BAN ANY, fully automatic weapons. THIS, will piss off Legions of voters... Reliable Voters, that have been known to cost us dearly at the polls.

Here is an excerpt from Bill Clinton's State of the Union address in 1995, about the backlash the followed the AW Ban in 1994.



http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/speeches/sud95wjc.htm

Second Amendment to the US Constitution: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They knew they were lying in the beginning. They planned to exploit the public's confusion. Nothing has changed. Except maybe the perception that gun-owners are ready to accept phony declarations made to their face and ignore the vile things said behind their backs..

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Yup. Time and time again Demokrats completely shoot themselves in the foot with this. When are you guys gonna learn? This is like telling the Republican base you're going to enforce abortions on every 2nd pregnancy.

What are they when they're at home?

And yet, "Republicans" ...

I'm so confused. Where am I??

I REALLY wish Richardson had won the nomination. Obama was the worst Democrat for guns and Biden is the icing on the cake...

I need to get an AR-15 before we get a new AWB!

to say Buh Bye.

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic
weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal
Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen."

and it goes on to say, "Obama does not believe that these common sense measures would roll back the Second Amendment."

If FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are a problem how does a ban on guns that are NOT fully automatic add up to "common sense?"

There are only two plausible explanations for the website's statements:

1. Neither the Senator nor anyone on his staff knows the difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto. (They are "stupid.")

2. They KNOW, but are exploiting the "looks" and manipulating those ignorant of the difference while cynically discounting those who do know. (They think we are "stupid.")

Have you got any better response from the campaign? All I have gotten back is a "form letter" that says "Thank you for your interest and support...." then goes on to restate word for word what is on the website.

I haven't gotten anything back, but we need to take them to task on this. Other than the economy, which mccain/palin are abysmal on, this is probably the number one issue for many voters. for some of the more fanatical gun nuts among us, it probably even trumps their pro-life stances.

That reply that you got back troubles me, because it does only leave those two conclusions that you came to. Maybe if enough of us made enough noise about this for long enough we would make a difference? I doubt it, since our party loves to shoot itself in the foot at the last minute so to speak...

The thing that makes me most nervous about stuff like the so called assault weapons ban, is that the people making the legislation really don't seem to have a fucking clue about what they are talking/legislating about. I wonder how much this extends into other topics? We need to find a way to communicate better with the legislators/political leaders to make sure that they truly know what they are talking about when they write and vote for legislation that effects all of our lives. I wish that each of us was guaranteed 5 minutes of face time every few years with each of our representatives so that we could truly get redress for our grievances.

Maybe I just need to find who is in charge of the state campaign in alabama and talk to them... Gun people may "cling to their guns" because of fear, but it is definitely not because of ignorance. We need to make sure that Obama and others understand this.

Getting a lame form letter was disappointing if not surprising. It is like no one read past the opening sentence. Was the waste of a stamp to even send it. I though a real letter would elicit a better response than an e-mail. Oh, well...........

The bulk of the anti-gun fanatics of the Party don't know anything technical about guns, what's more they don't care! It is an "emotional" issue for them. Facts will not change their minds. Guns are "icky"! Only knuckle-dragging troglodytes would have anything to do with them.......

Who can forget such wonderfully preserved moments of "The Perfect Stupid?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ heat-seeking bullets??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo the evil go up thingy??

That level of stupidity is not natural, it take years of dedicated practice!

I am living proof of it. I used to be very emotional and uninformed about guns. A friend and his mother used reason and explained things to me. they kind of didn't care what I thought, but they at least tried to make me understand. Plus, after I shot his browning Auto 5 shotgun the first time, I was hooked. Went home and bought me the first one in good shape that I could find. Still have it, always will have it.

I think the biggest problem is that most gun owners are so emotional themselves about the thought of someone taking away their guns that they fail to use reason with the anti gun crowd. You just have to figure out why they are so dead set against guns and try to find compelling arguments to win them over. Don't stress about whether someone is going to take your guns or not. remember, you have the gun, not them, they can't really threaten you... I'm not advocating you should threaten them either, but the fact that you have your gun (or guns) should make it all the more reasonable to not get emotional about it, since to take it away, they would probably be coming at you from the wrong end of it... Let's face it, no one is taking anyone's gun here in america without a fight. Just not gonna happen. So let us, the proud gun owners of the United States of America be the ones who are calm and speak reasonably, and not out of fear. we just need to look at it as if it is a foregone conclusion that it is not going to happen, and make arguments from that point of view, instead of getting hysterical about obama or anyone else taking our guns away. that is a much more powerful position to argue from, than the hysterical people who don't know the facts about what they are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&feature=related

People that are so "out of it" that they know nothing about he subject at hand, nor do they want to know the truth??

I just got a flier from the NRA saying Obama will impose a $500 tax on each box of ammunition and hunting rifles will cost $5,000. They have a web site http://gunbanobama.com/ Personally I don't think it makes any difference what Obama says, the NRA would have opposed him in any event just because he's a "libral". This has to hurt. The NRA does this every election right at the last minute when its hard to rebut their claims. Expect more of this from the NRA and pro life groups.

...what the policy will be when the address changes and one's not beholden to the people for their vote anymore. It's beyond me how the leaders of the Democratic Party can jump up and down about choice--read abortion--and not see that they are limiting a person's "choice" with the stance on gun ownership. What?...a woman can abort a baby, but she can't keep and bear arms to defend herself? My mother and father both held local elected positions, both were lifelong Democrats, both are deceased now, but I have to wonder what they'd think of the top dogs in the Democrat Party who have said publicly that they'd take away guns if they could.

Watched something on the KKK this past weekend. It's troubling that Senator Obama sat in the same church where the Rev Wright ranted and raved. Back in the 60s, there were some folk who put on white robes and exhibited their bigotry in a public manner and eventually others began to call them on it. In 2008, some guy called Wright had on a robe and ranted and raved, and if Senator Obama hadn't been running for president, no one would have said word one. With this kind of actions in a "church", is it any wonder the makeup of our prisons is what it is? With this kind of leadership from the pulpit, should one be surprised that some find the means to find fully automatic weapons and use them? And so the innocent are punished for the crimes of the guilty. And the unintended consequences of the 1934 gun law meant that no one wanted to work on research and development and when problems came later, measures to counter those problems had to play catch-up.

Some guy canvased the neighborhood this weekend. I was outside working. I asked him about Mr. Obama's stance on guns. Told him I had a problem with the leaders of the Democrat Party, most of whom seem hell bent on limiting and restricting gun ownership. And like I said, the paradox of their position on abortion--read choice again--is at odds with their position on someone keeping and bearing arms to defend their life at home. There's a school shooting in Finland. Folk talk about limiting, restricting guns. And maybe they do that and maybe they pay the price years in the future when another Molotov decides to supply them with bread baskets again. Can't happen here? It has.

Good luck with that.;-)

To protect the people

But who protects us from the goverment??

No thanks, I will keep mine.....

The Governor of Massachusetts sent troops to confiscate privately owned firearms April 19, 1775. You might want to read a book and see how THAT turned out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x184554#184632

There was a survey back in 1992 that asked US troops if they would go house to house to confiscate guns if ordered to do so. That survey caused a storm of controversy in the military. Enough troops said they would not participate that you might want to check the definition of "mutiny."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/one-eyed%20fat%20man/3

Mayor Nagin and his police chief tried that during Katrina and now are fighting a nice lawsuit. They had denied they took any guns for months when "some" were magically found. Their case was not helped by testimony from cops that after a while they ran out of space to store all the guns they confiscated so they "kept" the nice ones for personal collections and threw the others in the river.

Why do gun control proponents think that having the 'government' use ITS guns to take away guns from ordinary folks is going to make them safer? How is making sure that the government and criminals have a monopoly on firearms do that?

The government has absolutely no responsibility for your personal safety. You cannot sue a police department because it didn't prevent a crime. You are on your own. The only thing the government can and will do is try to prosecute a criminal if they can catch him and if they really feel like it. When seconds count, the police are only a few minutes away.

The Second Amendment is more about ensuring that citizens do not become subjects. It also is a way of keeping a large population of able bodies ready for a call to arms. In today's age of militarization of police departments and the erosion of civic responsibility, those notions seem quaint. No matter, it's a part of our Constitution and it's there for good reason. We were founded on revolutionary principles that thumbed it's collective nose at the established order.

As far as I'm concerned, the armed lawful citizen is as much a part of America as Free Speech, Religious Tolerance, and NFL Football.

Nah, governments that had a monopoly on guns have never disabused their populations..................

Here's one government's idea of protecting people:



and another:



Let's not forget:



or



and

of the unarmed. Thanks for the reminder of what is really at stake here.

in custody?

You do also know that SCOTUS says government can compel an individual to protect government, i.e. draft into the military and force to fight and possibly die to protect government, -- don't you?

It is interesting, and I mean that in earnest not sarcastically, that people advocate gun confiscation because they fear those people possessing firearms, but they are willing to send forth other people with guns to do the confiscation work and evidently have no fear of them.

If you fear me with a firearm to the point where you think I should not have them, why do you trust your government with them? Do you believe your government will always be responsive to the governed and have their best interest in mind?

they may be good at that but i thought government was supposed to protect our rights- not destroy them

If that is the case, then I can expect you to come knocking at my door, right?

:eyes:

So how likely is it that Obama will start banning guns when he becomes president?

Some state Democratic Party organizations now have pro-Second Amendment rights caucuses; I know there is one in Oregon (Blue Steel Democrats) and we here in Texas have just organized (no direct Web site as yet). There are others.

I'm sure one of the missions of these groups is to remove the issue of gun bans/gun control from national Party agenda. IMO, caucus efforts will be rather national in approach (since gun-control policies have been cast at the Congressional level). Also, IMO, most pro-Second Amendment folks would settle for a "local approach" with regards proposed gun-control policies. Local ordinances and laws would, of course, be subject to constitutional muster.

This is a case where the Democratic Party (since the 1960s) has taken on a "social issue" with a strong prohibitionist tint -- and sought to enact from Washington, D.C. Bad mistake, in terms of both social policy and realpolitik. And it generates a lot of animosity and stereotype.