The Anti-gun candidate seeks pro-gun vote

[Tigermike 4,082]

Obama aims for pro-gun vote

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 4/5/08 4:42 PM EST

Neither hunter or fisher, big-city politician Barck Obama nevertheless makes a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

Photo: AP

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

It also could provide clues as to whether Obama, as one of the Senate’s more liberal members, can position himself as an acceptable choice to a conservative-minded demographic in later primary contests and in the general election.

“Guns are a cultural lens through which they view candidates,” said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a progressive think tank. “If you are seen as way off on that issue, then you seem way off on everything. If you are seen as OK, if the lens is clearer, then they continue to look at you and size you up on other things.”

“For Obama, who is less known and is from Chicago, a city guy and an African American, the feeling is that he is anti-gun,” Kessler continued. “By handling the Second Amendment correctly, he starts to get a hearing among these folks.”

Obama aides would not discuss the campaign’s strategy. While the effort so far in Pennsylvania appears modest, it is noteworthy for a race that has largely avoided such direct engagement with gun owners.

The campaign has asked gun rights advocates like state Rep. Dan Surra, a Democrat from rural Elk County with an “A+” rating from the NRA, to form a coalition of supporters who can vouch for Obama.

“It is clear out there that I am for Obama, and they have reached out to me as a sportsman and a gun owner,” Surra said Thursday. “There has been an outreach to pro-gun legislators, pro-gun people who are sympathetic to Obama’s message.”

The campaign sent an e-mail this week to the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, saying it would “appreciate all sportsmen taking time to learn the facts: Our candidate strongly supports the right and traditions of sportsmen throughout Pennsylvania and the United States of America.”

And with an endorsement last month from Sen. Bob Casey Jr., Obama got a boost within a community that the Pennsylvania Democrat has courted assiduously. As part of an initiative to move beyond his party’s traditional bases during the 2006 Senate campaign, Casey visited stock car races, demolition derbies and gun clubs. Campaign operatives to both senators are now working closely together.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton does not appear to be making the same level of effort. She has reminded audiences in the last few months that she learned to shoot a gun during childhood vacations in Scranton and bagged a duck as an adult. But neither the state Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs nor her pro-gun Democratic supporters have heard of any specific campaign outreach.

The pitch from Obama may prove to be a tough sell with this state, where polling shows four in 10 voters — with higher percentages in rural areas — own a firearm. But it is a requisite if he hopes to expand his appeal beyond the state’s metropolitan areas.

When gun owners organized a rally at the state Capitol in Harrisburg last year, nearly half of the 50 legislative sponsors were Democrats. And in the last six months, the General Assembly has thwarted three gun control measures, with Democratic assistance, including one this past week that would have made it mandatory to report lost and stolen handguns.

“It’s interesting that it took until Pennsylvania for really anybody to talk about the gun issues,” Kessler said. “It shows you are down to battling for a small number of votes in a small number of states that are starting to look like the interior of Pennsylvania — West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana.”

Obama has long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing, although Obama has voiced support for the right of state and local governments to regulate guns.

In the Senate, he and Clinton broke on one vote, in July 2006. Siding with gun-rights advocates, Obama voted to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or natural disaster. Clinton was one of 16 senators to oppose the amendment.

A two-page white paper on Obama’s website doesn’t mention his voting record.

Instead, he introduces himself as a former constitutional law professor who “believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.”

“He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting,” the paper states. “He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and common sense regulation.”

Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs who received the Obama campaign e-mail on his gun record, said Obama sounds like he is “speaking out of both sides of his mouth.”

“I was at one of our county meetings last night and I mentioned this to [federation members],” Zullinger said Friday of the Obama outreach. “Everyone basically blew it off and weren’t buying it.”

Obama’s approach is similar to one advocated by Third Way, which issued a seven-step blueprint in 2006 to close the “gun gap” with Republicans. In a memo on its website, the group urges progressives to avoid silence on gun issues, and instead “redefine the issue in a way that appeals to gun owning voters.” (In other words lies?)

Among the key steps, according to Third Way: “Own the Second Amendment” and “Take Your Message Directly to Gun Owners — Don’t Let Your Opponent Define You.”

The National Rifle Association posted an article on its website in February warning members against buying into Obama and Clinton, who were using the “scripted rhetorical tricks in the Third Way playbook to the letter.”

Kim Stolfer, chairman of Firearm Owners Against Crime, a political action committee that conducts a candidate questionnaire on behalf of Pennsylvania’s gun groups, said he has not heard from any of the candidates — Obama, Clinton or Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

For now, even if Obama hasn’t won over the gun ownership groups, his outreach efforts show signs of paying some dividends.

State Rep. Tim Solobay, a pro-gun Democrat who is uncommitted but leaning toward Clinton, said he began asking questions about Obama’s record after he saw Surra, one of the highest-ranking gun advocates in the General Assembly, wearing an Obama button.

“It was very surprising to me,” Solobay said. “He is a sportsman. Guys like him carried the mantle for years as pro-gun Democrats. There may be some legitimacy to it. This is what Danny said to me: ‘He has got a much more pro-gun side than what even he anticipated or thought.’ I have not read his information yet. But I take Danny's opinion very highly."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9398.html

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

[Tigermike 4,082]

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

Obama

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008) (The 2nd amendment is ok in some places but not others? What about free speech? What about search and seizure? What about Cruel and Unsuual Punishment? What about Slavery?)

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) (As evidenced by his coming out against concealed carry. The anti-gun folks started out wanting to regulate automatic assault weapons. Now BO wants to ban simi-automatics. Where do they stop?)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005) Even you in your attempt to be open minded will admit these law suits were a tactic of the far left gun lobby's to drive gun manufacturers out of business. It is the same tactic they have used in environmental suits.

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006) (Well yes it is a problem of morality. Cities are full of immoral people with guns and when gun ownership is illegal, guess who will have guns? The criminals don't register their guns do they? It would be legal law abiding citizens who would be put in continuous danger.

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007) (That sounds great but the vast majority of gun dumping in cities is not by unscrupulous gun dealers but by the criminals who would never register guns in the first place. Who is buying all those guns on the black market in the cities? Law abiding citizens? Gang bangers? Rapist? Murders? Robbers?)

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007) (Where does it stop? Why is there a need to limit legal, law abiding citizens with no criminal record to 1 gun per month? What is the old saying about the camels nose in the tent?)

[GoAU 1,708]

Excellent response TM!!!

[RunInRed 19,293]

TM's Obama obsession continues...

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

[AFTiger 282]

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

So the constitution is an extreme right wing position.

The problem with the left view of the world is that they rarely respect the views of anybody else. They believe that they are correct and we are simply evil. The Democratic Party does not represent mainstream America. The Democrat Party is a collection of various groups with narrow issues that band together to elect sympathetic or pandering politicians. It has veered off into a ditch so that it views the middle stripe as extreme right. It has gotten so far off that is sees the left edge of the road as mainstream.

Pro homosexual

Pro Big (corrupt) Labor

Pro Abortion

Promotes high tax

Promotes Racism (quotas)

Against individual achievement

etc

[Tigermike 4,082]

TM's Obama obsession continues...

Come back when you have something relevant to add to the conversation.

[Tigermike 4,082]

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

As is often the case Tex, you are not only wrong in your facts but wrong in the conclusions you jump to paint others in a bad light.

First off I am not an "absolutist" who does not want any restrictions what so ever. I just think there are enough and to further restrict law abiding gun owners because of the actions of criminals is not right. I also think it is obscenely dishonest (a) for Obama to try and move a little to the middle on this issue when his record and his speeches clearly indicate his is no where near the middle. It is also dishonest of you to not just imply but to say he is closer to the middle than me or anyone else. He is not.

Second of all your assumption is that Obama is in the mainstream of American thought. He is far from it. In fact he is further to the left of the mainstream than any dim candidate for president in the past 30 years.

Third of all: Show me a "Dems who are more in the mainstream of America". Ya'll had one and ran him out of the party. Remember Joe Lieberman? He was a libs lib, but he also believed in a strong national defense and saw the WOT for what it is. All those "mainstream" libs you talk of ran him out of the party. Guess what the people of Connecticut elected him anyway.

You say "The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues." I know damn well where the middle is and it's nowhere near Obama.

Now if you want to talk about gun control and what is right and what is wrong fine let's do. But you need to be honest.

In 1776 our countries founding fathers unanimously ratified the Declaration of Indpendence. In it they made this statement.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Several years later when writing the Constitution, they saw fit to add the 2nd amendment. In which they said:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

I would argue that the 2nd amendment is a direct result of and a continuation of the first thought. The right to own guns is not based on the second amendment. If there were no second amendment in the U.S. Constitution, one would still possess a right to own a weapon of self-defense, which in today's context, means a firearm, i.e., a gun.

The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one's life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life.

It would be absurd to say one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the means necessary to protect that life. It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to purchase food. Yet, this is what opponents to the right to own a gun are really against: the right to life.

Unfortunately, it is the right to life, that is ignored in the debate over the right to bear arms, both by its opponents, and by its so-called defenders! As Alexander Maher writes in Capitalism Magazine:

"The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man's rights. Statistical arguments on gun control are a red herring -- as the leftists' appeals to hungry children or the environmentalists' appeals to clean parks are also meant to distract their opponents from the fundamental issues at stake. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other defenders of the right to bear arms argue over statistics and interpreting the Constitution, the real issues remain untouched and are sacrificed to the enemies of our freedom."

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

So the constitution is an extreme right wing position.

The problem with the left view of the world is that they rarely respect the views of anybody else. They believe that they are correct and we are simply evil. The Democratic Party does not represent mainstream America. The Democrat Party is a collection of various groups with narrow issues that band together to elect sympathetic or pandering politicians. It has veered off into a ditch so that it views the middle stripe as extreme right. It has gotten so far off that is sees the left edge of the road as mainstream.

Thanks for illustrating the kind of reflexive response I was referencing.

I do respect Tigermike's views. I was pointing out that just because his views differed from Obama's didn't make Obama's views "far left wing" of the Dem party. The fact is, the far left wing disagrees with Obama's basic premise that there is an individual right to bear arms.

I would suggest that if the Republican party better reflected the mainstream of America, their membership rolls wouldn't be in such rapid decline. The reality is that on many issues the middle of American opinion lies between the positions held by the Democrats and the Republicans. Abortion is an example. Most folks don't hold the absolutist positions that tend to mark candidates of the two major parties. They favor the availability of abortion, but with more restrictions than the Democratic party establishment typically favors.

In regard to the constitution, the 2nd amendment is written so poorly that folks with very different views can claim to believe in it.

The first amendment is far more clear-- but does that mean that their are no restrictions on "free speech"? There are numerous restrictions. And you would probably favor even more, if you could choose them.

Freedom of religion shall not be abridged? Can I practice polygamy? Ritual sacrifice? Honor killings?

Like any other written document, the Constitution must be interpreted.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

As is often the case Tex, you are not only wrong in your facts but wrong in the conclusions you jump to paint others in a bad light.

First off I am not an "absolutist" who does not want any restrictions what so ever. I just think there are enough and to further restrict law abiding gun owners because of the actions of criminals is not right. I also think it is obscenely dishonest (a) for Obama to try and move a little to the middle on this issue when

Lieberman is very outside the mainstream in his strong belief that we were right to go into Iraq and that we should stay their indefinitely.

Third of all: Show me a "Dems who are more in the mainstream of America". Ya'll had one and ran him out of the party. Remember Joe Lieberman? He was a libs lib, but he also believed in a strong national defense and saw the WOT for what it is. All those "mainstream" libs you talk of ran him out of the party. Guess what the people of Connecticut elected him anyway.

[Tigermike 4,082]

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

Felons? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those with a criminal record? Neither should they. Non citizens of the U.S.? Can they be armed? Should they be? Illegal immigrants? To start with they are here illegally and couldn't show proper ID go buy a weapon legally. So they would be some of the ones buying illegal guns from the gang bangers.

There are laws on the books to restrict certain automatic weapons. Machine guns - collectors can get a license and own machine guns. I have no problem with that. Should anyone and everyone own a machine gun? In theory yes, in practicality NO. Anybody and everybody can't fire a machine gun. I have when I was in the service and if you do, you better know what you are doing.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

Felons? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those with a criminal record? Neither should they. Non citizens of the U.S.? Can they be armed? Should they be? Illegal immigrants? To start with they are here illegally and couldn't show proper ID go buy a weapon legally. So they would be some of the ones buying illegal guns from the gang bangers.

There are laws on the books to restrict certain automatic weapons. Machine guns - collectors can get a license and own machine guns. I have no problem with that. Should anyone and everyone own a machine gun? In theory yes, in practicality NO. Anybody and everybody can't fire a machine gun. I have when I was in the service and if you do, you better know what you are doing.

[AFTiger 282]

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

So the constitution is an extreme right wing position.

The problem with the left view of the world is that they rarely respect the views of anybody else. They believe that they are correct and we are simply evil. The Democratic Party does not represent mainstream America. The Democrat Party is a collection of various groups with narrow issues that band together to elect sympathetic or pandering politicians. It has veered off into a ditch so that it views the middle stripe as extreme right. It has gotten so far off that is sees the left edge of the road as mainstream.

Thanks for illustrating the kind of reflexive response I was referencing.

I do respect Tigermike's views. I was pointing out that just because his views differed from Obama's didn't make Obama's views "far left wing" of the Dem party. The fact is, the far left wing disagrees with Obama's basic premise that there is an individual right to bear arms.

I would suggest that if the Republican party better reflected the mainstream of America, their membership rolls wouldn't be in such rapid decline. The reality is that on many issues the middle of American opinion lies between the positions held by the Democrats and the Republicans. Abortion is an example. Most folks don't hold the absolutist positions that tend to mark candidates of the two major parties. They favor the availability of abortion, but with more restrictions than the Democratic party establishment typically favors.

In regard to the constitution, the 2nd amendment is written so poorly that folks with very different views can claim to believe in it.

The first amendment is far more clear-- but does that mean that their are no restrictions on "free speech"? There are numerous restrictions. And you would probably favor even more, if you could choose them.

Freedom of religion shall not be abridged? Can I practice polygamy? Ritual sacrifice? Honor killings?

Like any other written document, the Constitution must be interpreted.

You have confirmed my view.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

So the constitution is an extreme right wing position.

The problem with the left view of the world is that they rarely respect the views of anybody else. They believe that they are correct and we are simply evil. The Democratic Party does not represent mainstream America. The Democrat Party is a collection of various groups with narrow issues that band together to elect sympathetic or pandering politicians. It has veered off into a ditch so that it views the middle stripe as extreme right. It has gotten so far off that is sees the left edge of the road as mainstream.

Thanks for illustrating the kind of reflexive response I was referencing.

I do respect Tigermike's views. I was pointing out that just because his views differed from Obama's didn't make Obama's views "far left wing" of the Dem party. The fact is, the far left wing disagrees with Obama's basic premise that there is an individual right to bear arms.

I would suggest that if the Republican party better reflected the mainstream of America, their membership rolls wouldn't be in such rapid decline. The reality is that on many issues the middle of American opinion lies between the positions held by the Democrats and the Republicans. Abortion is an example. Most folks don't hold the absolutist positions that tend to mark candidates of the two major parties. They favor the availability of abortion, but with more restrictions than the Democratic party establishment typically favors.

In regard to the constitution, the 2nd amendment is written so poorly that folks with very different views can claim to believe in it.

The first amendment is far more clear-- but does that mean that their are no restrictions on "free speech"? There are numerous restrictions. And you would probably favor even more, if you could choose them.

Freedom of religion shall not be abridged? Can I practice polygamy? Ritual sacrifice? Honor killings?

Like any other written document, the Constitution must be interpreted.

You have confirmed my view.

Your view was already confirmed. In concrete.

[Tigermike 4,082]

Neither is abortion, but the dims seem to think it is carved in stone.

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

Felons? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those with a criminal record? Neither should they. Non citizens of the U.S.? Can they be armed? Should they be? Illegal immigrants? To start with they are here illegally and couldn't show proper ID go buy a weapon legally. So they would be some of the ones buying illegal guns from the gang bangers.

There are laws on the books to restrict certain automatic weapons. Machine guns - collectors can get a license and own machine guns. I have no problem with that. Should anyone and everyone own a machine gun? In theory yes, in practicality NO. Anybody and everybody can't fire a machine gun. I have when I was in the service and if you do, you better know what you are doing.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

So that's your answer?

Neither is abortion, but the dims seem to think it is carved in stone.

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

Felons? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those with a criminal record? Neither should they. Non citizens of the U.S.? Can they be armed? Should they be? Illegal immigrants? To start with they are here illegally and couldn't show proper ID go buy a weapon legally. So they would be some of the ones buying illegal guns from the gang bangers.

There are laws on the books to restrict certain automatic weapons. Machine guns - collectors can get a license and own machine guns. I have no problem with that. Should anyone and everyone own a machine gun? In theory yes, in practicality NO. Anybody and everybody can't fire a machine gun. I have when I was in the service and if you do, you better know what you are doing.

[Tigermike 4,082]

So what else would you like? Is there any thing in the Constitution that has not been amended? And by asking that no I am not opening up to further amendments and encroachments to the 2nd. You know exactly what the far left wing of the DNC is wanting to do.

So that's your answer?

Neither is abortion, but the dims seem to think it is carved in stone.

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

Felons? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those with a criminal record? Neither should they. Non citizens of the U.S.? Can they be armed? Should they be? Illegal immigrants? To start with they are here illegally and couldn't show proper ID go buy a weapon legally. So they would be some of the ones buying illegal guns from the gang bangers.

There are laws on the books to restrict certain automatic weapons. Machine guns - collectors can get a license and own machine guns. I have no problem with that. Should anyone and everyone own a machine gun? In theory yes, in practicality NO. Anybody and everybody can't fire a machine gun. I have when I was in the service and if you do, you better know what you are doing.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

Just trying to have a respectful conversation on the topic.

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I was even agreeing with you. Anytime we regulate a right, we need to have a basis for doing so. All I'm asking is how you arrive at restrictions you approve of.

So what else would you like? Is there any thing in the Constitution that has not been amended? And by asking that no I am not opening up to further amendments and encroachments to the 2nd. You know exactly what the far left wing of the DNC is wanting to do.

So that's your answer?

Neither is abortion, but the dims seem to think it is carved in stone.

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I apologize if I mischaracterized your views as not favoring any restrictions. What restrictions on arms do you favor? How do you square those restrictions with the 2nd Amendment?

Felons? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Those with a criminal record? Neither should they. Non citizens of the U.S.? Can they be armed? Should they be? Illegal immigrants? To start with they are here illegally and couldn't show proper ID go buy a weapon legally. So they would be some of the ones buying illegal guns from the gang bangers.

There are laws on the books to restrict certain automatic weapons. Machine guns - collectors can get a license and own machine guns. I have no problem with that. Should anyone and everyone own a machine gun? In theory yes, in practicality NO. Anybody and everybody can't fire a machine gun. I have when I was in the service and if you do, you better know what you are doing.

[GoAU 1,708]

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

What are his beliefs - single shot only, to be purchased on intervals that he deems appropriate? If meet the requirements to own a firearm why in the heck should it be "1 per month?" Do we limit other purchases (at least not yet)?

I'm also curious about your "this is much more mainstream America" - what are you using to make this statement? Just because YOU believe that doesn't mean that is what "mainstream" America believes. The far left is no more elightened on "mainstream" issues than the far right, and in many cases are far more ignorant of the reprucussions of what they tout.

[TexasTiger 15,462]

I think much of "mainstream America" believe that the average American exercising his 2nd Amendment rights can do so buying only 60 handguns in a five-year period. Most folks don't have a problem banning cop-killer bullets.

More Americans favor "stricter gun control" than less strict.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...poll020514.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-B...t-Own-Guns.aspx

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

What are his beliefs - single shot only, to be purchased on intervals that he deems appropriate? If meet the requirements to own a firearm why in the heck should it be "1 per month?" Do we limit other purchases (at least not yet)?

I'm also curious about your "this is much more mainstream America" - what are you using to make this statement? Just because YOU believe that doesn't mean that is what "mainstream" America believes. The far left is no more elightened on "mainstream" issues than the far right, and in many cases are far more ignorant of the reprucussions of what they tout.

[Tigermike 4,082]

Just trying to have a respectful conversation on the topic.

I think those are reasonable restrictions. But they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. What is the basis for them?

I was even agreeing with you. Anytime we regulate a right, we need to have a basis for doing so. All I'm asking is how you arrive at restrictions you approve of.

Fair enough. All I am saying is there are enough gun laws on the books already. They need to be enforced. I arrive at those decisions by common sense.

There are already enough emigration laws on the books already. They need to be enforced. But that is for another thread.

Obviously when the constitution was written it was another time. There were many reasons to need to be armed. Even in the cities. But on the frontiers it was mandatory. Guns were available and were sold or bartered for with little or thought if the purchaser was a criminal or not. Gun licenses are fairly new and can do what they were intended to do. Keep new legal guns from becoming illegal by being purchased off the shelves by criminals. But as with all things those laws can be got around and the criminals do get around them all the time.

[GoAU 1,708]

What exactly is the rationale of limiting handgun purchases to 2 per month? granted, I cannot ever remember buying 2 per month anyway, so this would have no real impact on me other than setting a dangerous precedent in the limiting of constitutional rights. Can you think of anything else that if you meet the requirements to purchase the government limits? Should we limit alcohol purchases in an effort to curb DUIs?

What exactly is a "cop killer" bullet? Most of the press about "cop killer" bulllets erronously refered to hollow point type ammunition that is much less likely to penetrate the body armor that most police officers where (but is very effective against home intruders). If you are refering to armor pericing, depleted uranium or other penetrator ammunition, once again this wouldn't impact the vast majority of gun owners, but would also impact very few criminals. These types of ammunition are typically quite expensive and not easy to come by. I would doubt most criminals pay permium money for ammunition, or buy it from the types of shops that carry these types of "high end" ammunition - typically these types of shops are the most strict in following the laws.

Regarding "stricter" gun laws - I've got a few questions I'd like to hear your opinion on:

1) What is the "intent" of these "stricter" laws? Do you want to limit the availability of firearms to law abiding citizens?

2) Do you feel we "fully enforce" our exisitng laws today? How many criminals do you see let out early for "overcrowding" or "good behavior"? Is this really an issue of needing MORE laws and restrictions, or either enforcing the ones we have or increasing the punishments?

3) What additional types of laws do you propose that would deter the behavior of criminals? Other than disarming the law abiding citizens, what will more restrictions do for us?

Please try to keep your personal beliefs at bay - whether or not you see the need for a handgun, concealed carry, etc really has no bearing as to the current laws, protection of the second ammendment, etc.

I think much of "mainstream America" believe that the average American exercising his 2nd Amendment rights can do so buying only 60 handguns in a five-year period. Most folks don't have a problem banning cop-killer bullets.

More Americans favor "stricter gun control" than less strict.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...poll020514.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-B...t-Own-Guns.aspx

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

What are his beliefs - single shot only, to be purchased on intervals that he deems appropriate? If meet the requirements to own a firearm why in the heck should it be "1 per month?" Do we limit other purchases (at least not yet)?

I'm also curious about your "this is much more mainstream America" - what are you using to make this statement? Just because YOU believe that doesn't mean that is what "mainstream" America believes. The far left is no more elightened on "mainstream" issues than the far right, and in many cases are far more ignorant of the reprucussions of what they tout.

[Tigermike 4,082]

What exactly is the rationale of limiting handgun purchases to 2 per month?

It is a starting point for the anti gun folks to get this passed then later to add on and take a little more away. They will not be content until all legal guns are confiscated. That is their goal. This is just the first step toward that goal.

[Tigermike 4,082]

April 07, 2008

Obama's Gun Dance

By Robert Novak

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.

link