# Obama and Guns



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Just for those of you who may uninformed....

Obama is strongly anti-gun. Just the other day he claimed that he wanted to get rid of all concealed carry licenses nation-wide and put a 500% tax on gun purchases. I know this shouldn't be the foundation for everyones vote, just thought some of you should be aware if you are not following the Presidential race.

Thanks


----------



## Wildone (Aug 8, 2008)

He seems to be leading in some of the polls..:yikes::yikes:


----------



## eddiejohn4 (Dec 23, 2005)

This is nothing new for the far left wing nuts we have in this country. I can only hope this man never sees the white house as his socialist far left views will do nothing but harm this country. his appointments to the surpreme court alone will take many years to recover from.

We are at a cross roads in this country ,will we be a democracy as the far left agenda is pushing for where the majority can take the rights from another or the republic we were at the conception of this great nation.


----------



## Buckrookie (Nov 9, 2007)

This is why I bought a ton of high cap mags and my AR-15 this year.
I want to make sure I got the stuff before it is banned again:evil:.


----------



## hornet007 (Feb 11, 2006)

First - uptracker, do you have a source for the comment that you claim came from Senator Obama?

Second, I would like to point out what Senator Obama's official position is on the Second Amendment. This comes from the document at this location http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf



> "PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
> Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns each year. Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he 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."


The document that is the source for the quote indicates Barack Obama's commitment to the sportsmen of this country, and I would encourage the entire M-S.com community to read it.

For completeness, here is Senator McCain's policy statement's regarding the Second Amendment http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm


----------



## Ninja (Feb 20, 2005)

hornet007 said:


> First - uptracker, do you have a source for the comment that you claim came from Senator Obama?
> 
> Second, I would like to point out what Senator Obama's official position is on the Second Amendment. This comes from the document at this location http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf
> 
> ...


 
Here you go.....all the source info is at the bottom of the page in the link.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm


----------



## Wildone (Aug 8, 2008)

This country is screwed either way. If he gets in he is anti gun which is not good for our country or if he don't get elected the homeys will burn down the country. Look at LA over Rodney King, and after sports championship events....Picture that country wide....Nuff siad... I hear LE is pepping just in case.:yikes:


----------



## 45/70fan (May 29, 2005)

Hornet007, your either blind, deaf and dumb or both parents were ostrich. Granted McCain isn't the most gun friendly but at this jucture he is the least dangerous to this countries future. If you think OB is so gun friendly take a look at his brief voting record in the Senate, than look at his legacy in the Illinois legislature. Given his choice for VP is Biden should leave no question about how liberal (anti 2nd Amendment) the white house will be. Here is some information you need to review before supporting the OB ticket. 
http://www.nraila.org/obama/


----------



## Buckrookie (Nov 9, 2007)

I would never have guess a Obamaha nation suporter from a sports forum??? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT


----------



## Wildone (Aug 8, 2008)

Buckrookie said:


> I would never have guess a Obamaha nation suporter from a sports forum??? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT


Well the Good Old Boy Tobby Keith has endorsed Obama for president. Lord Please help us.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jRR9_pyEtgHI26tHSsFK_upDc6UAD92LJ6EG0


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

He said nice things but no where did I see he was voting for Obama. He was just on Glenn Beck and said good things about both candidates. When asked if he had made up his mind on who he was voting for, his answer was no.


----------



## Wildone (Aug 8, 2008)

Im the forums I read. So many folks said they no longer support Toby Keith. I had always like the singer.


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

hornet007,I guess I should not be shocked by your BULL-**IT seeing you are from ann arbor.Nice try


----------



## Wildone (Aug 8, 2008)

SNAREMAN said:


> hornet007,I guess I should not be shocked by your BULL-**IT seeing you are from ann arbor.Nice try


That is what I was thinking..


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Ninja said:


> Here you go.....all the source info is at the bottom of the page in the link.
> 
> http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm


Thanks for the link Ken.


----------



## Hoppe's no.10 (Sep 16, 2007)

Instead of debating whether or not Obama would or would not actively support gun owners as say he actively supports the pro-abortion movement please thoughtfully consider this question: Would the cause of private gun ownership, concealed carry, hunting in general and the like be advanced or be degraded under an Obama presidency? And again please consider in your deliberation my use of the phrase "...an Obama presidency..." as opposed to the phrase "...Obama as president..." 

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

hornet007 said:


> First - uptracker, do you have a source for the comment that you claim came from Senator Obama?
> 
> Second, I would like to point out what Senator Obama's official position is on the Second Amendment. This comes from the document at this location http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf
> 
> ...


I am just sure if elected the Obama/Biden team will suddenly turn pro gun.

These two are 20 times left of McCain on gun rights plain and simple.

Any gunowner/sportsman who thinks different is at best a hobbyist gun owner who does not understand the consequences of this duo of doom playing around with the our gun rights.

After gun rights are gone, the others will follow shortly.


----------



## eddiejohn4 (Dec 23, 2005)

yep the dems are sure known for thier gun rights legislature. look at how he has voted not what press he releases.


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Obama will do precisely what Pelosi tells him too. His purpose is to simply get elected so she can be turned loose on society. ie - Say whatever you need to get elected, we'll do whatever we want afterwords. Better get used to socialism, it's just around the corner.


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

Cobra said:


> Obama will do precisely what Pelosi tells him too. His purpose is to simply get elected so she can be turned loose on society. ie - Say whatever you need to get elected, we'll do whatever we want afterwords. Better get used to socialism, it's just around the corner.


much easier to shear.....


----------



## woodie slayer (Feb 25, 2006)

Ninja said:


> Here you go.....all the source info is at the bottom of the page in the link.
> 
> http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm


 
that sum of a batch


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

hornet007 said:


> First - uptracker, do you have a source for the comment that you claim came from Senator Obama?
> 
> Second, I would like to point out what Senator Obama's official position is on the Second Amendment. This comes from the document at this location http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf
> 
> ...


Some one needs to educate Mr. Obama so that he fully understands that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT about HUNTING but about the ability of the people to eject his sorry **** from the White House when he gets too big for his britches.


----------



## symen696 (Nov 7, 2006)

I think the free press said it best when it "miss" printed obama as osoma.  I can not beleive this guy is being considered to lead our country. Everyone make sure you got lots of bullets. I see bad things coming.


----------



## Buckrookie (Nov 9, 2007)




----------



## Fix_F16 (Feb 15, 2006)

First, let me state that I hate politics. My favorite saying is, "if a politician's lips are moving, he's probably lying." This leads me to my second point. 

Obama's web site says he'll promise to ensure rights of sportsmen, blah, blah, blah. As stated before, it's his voting record (albeit limited) that speaks volumes. 

Come on people, look at their actions, not their words when you're voting. This is why someone like Kwame can get reelected.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

and the 4 republicans that sponsored the latest assault weapons ban?

this is not a clear cut subject.. 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

rzdrmh said:


> and the 4 republicans that sponsored the latest assault weapons ban?
> 
> this is not a clear cut subject..
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html


than an Obama/Pelosi love child raised by Ted Kennedy....

Call the pig a king if you want, but it is still a pig.

Obama will put the hurt to gunowners.

Anyone who thinks other wise is dead wrong....

And BTW, there are LOTS of Democrats who feel that the 2nd should not be taken away or f'ed with. Just wish they would stand up to the turds in their party who just cannot seem to grasp this concept.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> this is not a clear cut subject..


It is very clear cut when it comes to the 2nd amendment. An Obama, Pelosi and Reid controlled Washington will be terrible for the 2nd amendment.

Don't forget the senate. The September issue of 1st Freedom has some good stuff on the senate races. Read it! *Now* is the time for all NRA members to buck-up and do what they can. Every little bit helps!


----------



## duckdevil (Nov 16, 2004)

Man, I hate that every election comes down to which candidate sucks a little bit less that the other. Because both of these jackazzes suck.

DD


----------



## Bear Creek (Feb 9, 2003)

Fix_F16 said:


> First, let me state that I hate politics. My favorite saying is, "if a politician's lips are moving, he's probably lying." This leads me to my second point.
> 
> Obama's web site says he'll promise to ensure rights of sportsmen, blah, blah, blah. As stated before, it's his voting record (albeit limited) that speaks volumes.
> 
> Come on people, look at their actions, not their words when you're voting. This is why someone like Kwame can get reelected.


AMEN Brother, and as others have stated the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting is about the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Obama's Press release was probably sent out the day after the Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment.

Besides all that, just the judges that Obama would try and get in the high court could ruin this country for a long long time.

Keep up the good fight guys and for those of you sitting on the fence don't listen to the Bull @#$$ the Liberal Leftists are spitting out. Just look around you and see what 40 plus years of social programs has gotten you. In case you can't see it....Absolutely NOTHING but HIGHER TAXES!!!


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

*http://www.palinforgovernor.com/News Releases/10.08.06PalinNRArating.pdf*​ 
*Anchorage  October 8, 2006  *Republican candidate for Governor
Sarah Palin and her running mate, Republican candidate for Lieutenant
Governor Sean Parnell have earned the highest possible rating from
the National Rifle Association. The NRA, which officially endorsed Palin​on Friday, gave the duo an A+ rating.

She is also a life member of the NRA.


----------



## 45/70fan (May 29, 2005)

*Barack Obama on Gun Control *

*Democratic Jr Senator (IL)*



http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
*Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws *

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms? 

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. 
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns? 
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets. Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008 
*FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban *

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." 

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. 
Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008 
*Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok *

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? 

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008 
*Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing *

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? 

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008 
*2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month *

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. 
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007 
*Concealed carry OK for retired police officers *

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent. 

When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms." 
It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007 
*Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities *

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men? 

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now. Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007 
*Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality *

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. 
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006 
*Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban *

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into. 

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004 
*Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions *



Principles that Obama supports on gun issues: 
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 
*Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. *

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would: 

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices


----------



## RAMBOY (Jul 20, 2008)

Bear Creek said:


> AMEN Brother, and as others have stated the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting is about the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Obama's Press release was probably sent out the day after the Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Besides all that, just the judges that Obama would try and get in the high court could ruin this country for a long long time.
> 
> Keep up the good fight guys and for those of you sitting on the fence don't listen to the Bull @#$$ the Liberal Leftists are spitting out. Just look around you and see what 40 plus years of social programs has gotten you. In case you can't see it....Absolutely NOTHING but HIGHER TAXES!!!


 

Didn't you learn your lesson when Granholm was re-elected? Higher taxes and still waiting to be "blown away" by her economic plan.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

It is obvious where Obama stands. On all of America's guns so they can be melted down. Time to melt down his words to what they mean: antigunowner, antihunter, antiSecondAmendment. He would disarm America so that it is open season on the good old USA. Time to end his season at the ballot box.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate (see picture below) she's a Lifetime Member of the NRA. "Palin hunts, ice fishes, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a float plane.[118]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin













I think I'm in love. :lol:


----------



## Sargeyork (Dec 9, 2004)

How do I find a woman like this in Michigan?


----------



## FireMan39 (May 26, 2006)

Sargeyork said:


> How do I find a woman like this in Michigan?


----------



## 6thMichCav (Nov 8, 2007)

I don't like McCain, and I don't like Obama, and none of the 3rd party candidates are worth a darn. I'm with Dad: "There hasn't been a decent president since Eisenhower."

That said, NO PRESIDENT PASSES LEGISLATION IN A VACUUM. Someone has to write it, Congress has to pass it, then the President signs (or doesn't sign it). If someone passes stupid legislation, then we have the right to appeal it to the Supreme Court--very handy in Washington D.C. lately.

Obama and McCain can't take my guns away unless Congress authorizes it. Then we have several hundred Senators and Representatives to blame, and all of their voting constituents. 

Not to hijack the thread, just a rhetorical question: What would YOU do as the man (or woman) in the office who has a crying, swearing mother whose kid was just killed with a lawfully purchased gun? Tell her the good people didn't shoot your kid? People whose loved ones get shot vote, too, and I can't quite blame them if they don't understand responsible gun ownership. They just never want the situation to happen again.

My philosophy is to keep the guns in the safe until ready to use, and neither ObamaCain nor any nut will get to them without significant mayhem.


----------



## RAMBOY (Jul 20, 2008)

6thMichCav said:


> I don't like McCain, and I don't like Obama, and none of the 3rd party candidates are worth a darn. I'm with Dad: "There hasn't been a decent president since Eisenhower."
> 
> That said, NO PRESIDENT PASSES LEGISLATION IN A VACUUM. Someone has to write it, Congress has to pass it, then the President signs (or doesn't sign it). If someone passes stupid legislation, then we have the right to appeal it to the Supreme Court--very handy in Washington D.C. lately.
> 
> ...


 

What would you do about the crying, swearing mother whose kid was just killed in a lawfully purchased automobile assembled by one of the Detroit 3 automakers?


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Think the left wing loonies are working at getting rid of cars already. They want us unarmed, unable to move about freely and totally dependent on their care.


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

Is Obama's veiws on gun control alone enough to make you guys vote for another republican? If thats true then then we will need our guns to feed our familys because we wont have jobs!! You should just forclose on your house now and move to the woods and live off the land. This country has far worse problems then someone in the white house that dont like guns. Its not like Obama could change the constition. I dont care who the NRA endorsed I dont care tht Sara Palin is a NRA member. I do care that 6 years ago she was on the PTA and next year she could be the PRESIDENT of the greatest country on earth because she likes guns. How stupid!!! Republicans lie cheat and decive the americen public every four years. Lets not tax big business lets tax the middle class and the poor???There just sitting back laughing at us POOR smucks!! Another 4 or even worse 8 years we will be at war with Iraq still and Russia who knows who else. Our young soilders will be dead and still dying. And at home we will be in a full blown recession or even depression. Remember 4 yrs ago the republicans bashed John Kerry for being a Veitnom Vet but now mcain is americas new hero. Whatever they need to say. BUT WE ALL STILL GOT OUR GUNS that never would have got taken away regardless who is in office!


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Sounds as if you're in favor of SOCIALISM since that's what obamas programs are aimed at.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Remy, I do agree with some of your views. In the future, we almost need to have the race based on two moderates. I know, it's already that way in a sense, but that's what we need to do.

In one way or the other, I'm a strong democrat and the next day I'm a strong republican. I feel everyone can be either-or at any point in time.

Currently, I want:
1. a good economy
2. decrease in college tuition for everyone
3. pro-gun
4. no more soldiers killed for no reason
5. shoot bin laden...it CAN be done now IMO
6. lower taxes for people making $2,000-$100,000/yr.
7. lower gas prices yet have a lot of R&D for a new energy concept
8. don't really care about abortion personally
9. don't really care if gays marry, but they should be able to share benefits etc.
10. not allow China to be the global leader...no war though, just keep business here instead of sending jobs elsewhere
11. no socialized medicine....that's bad news...just look at Ontario
12. I want my SS $$$ when I finally reach 62 y/o...don't privatize though...why should we privatize...it should be there since I'm paying for it now. I hate this actually. I should be putting that $$ in my 401K if I'm not going to see it when I retire.
13. I someday hope for pensions to return
14. Quit getting involved in everybody elses civil and religious wars...it's not our problem...it's theirs.
15. Stand behind our disabled vets....free health care and quality health care (go walk around a V.A. hospital one day and you'll feel the same...you should see the young people all messed up in there. I'm sure it's similar to what happened in the early 70's when Vietnam was ending)

........and many more.

See what i mean though. I could side with both of them yet could screw myself by voting for one.


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

remy870 said:


> Is Obama's veiws on gun control alone enough to make you guys vote for another republican? If thats true then then we will need our guns to feed our familys because we wont have jobs!! You should just forclose on your house now and move to the woods and live off the land. This country has far worse problems then someone in the white house that dont like guns. Its not like Obama could change the constition. I dont care who the NRA endorsed I dont care tht Sara Palin is a NRA member. I do care that 6 years ago she was on the PTA and next year she could be the PRESIDENT of the greatest country on earth because she likes guns. How stupid!!! Republicans lie cheat and decive the americen public every four years. Lets not tax big business lets tax the middle class and the poor???There just sitting back laughing at us POOR smucks!! Another 4 or even worse 8 years we will be at war with Iraq still and Russia who knows who else. Our young soilders will be dead and still dying. And at home we will be in a full blown recession or even depression. Remember 4 yrs ago the republicans bashed John Kerry for being a Veitnom Vet but now mcain is americas new hero. Whatever they need to say. BUT WE ALL STILL GOT OUR GUNS that never would have got taken away regardless who is in office!


Obama/Biden and their trusty side kick Pelosi are anti gun socialists who would like all of the "sheeple" to have no teeth to bite back if required.

Think thats a laughing matter? Look at Australia, Canada and England, their FORMER gun owners are not laughing..... Obama WILL if elected not "Change the Constitution", but attempt in every way possible to manipulate the laws of our land by appointing anti gun Judicial appointees who will eventually stop us from owning ANY type of firearm if possible. Tax gunowners to death on ammo or user/luxury taxes/fees that will only allow the elite to defend themselves. Was the Constitution changed when the AWB was in effect? Was the Constitution changed while DC residents could not defend themselves? Was the Constitution changed while Morton Grove residents live under these rules?

Far bigger issues than gun control? I am sure everyone has their own issue (s) of pertinence. That is your right being a FREE citizen. Many though have been doing wonderfully without the need for our 2nd amendment right to be shredded by this gang. I have no fear of losing my job unless I do somethiong that would cause it. Many who prepared themselves for life properly have or will prosper under most any economic conditions. 

Foreclose my house? C'mon..... 

It would be shameful if your a gunowner and do not belong to the NRA and fully support the Constitutional right to bear arms... Although I unfortunaetly see many "Hunters/Gunowners" here who are fair weather friends at best.

I am sure that Republicans are the only ones who lie, cheat and steal:lol: That almost sounds like a statement from a Union pep rally

Your prediction of increased wars based on a Republican candidate winning this election are from? The message I heard last night was much different from yours???

Kerry was not bashed for serving. He was called to task about LYING concerning his service. I also remember his Goose hunting expedition as he tried to back peddle his way into gunowners back pockets:lol::lol::lol: 

It appears you have convinced yourself already how safe your guns are. Google 'Gun Control in either Australia/Canada/England' and see how many thought just like you did at one time And please look at the types of guns banned/seized as well. Of course the best recent example of how safe your firearms are with a democrat in control is the siezures in New Orleans after Katrina. Still feel okay with your "But we _*still *_have all our guns" statement" 

Because I sure as hell don't. And neither does MY NRA and millions of other free thinking gun rights advocates.


----------



## milmo1 (Nov 9, 2005)

steelsetter said:


> I am sure that Republicans are the only ones who lie, cheat and steal:lol: That almost sounds like a statement from a Union pep rally


Isn't Kwame a Democrat?


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

Well lets see here... Obama is a Chicago politician... Go ask any one living in the city of Chicago about owning a handgun... Might want to go find a cop, the Mayor, one of his elitist friends or a criminal though, they're just about the only handgun owners you'll find.... so pound sand you serf... But wait, the 2nd Amendment is intact, right? For God's sake look what the citizens of Washington D.C. are going through, EVEN AFTER a favorable Supreme Court ruling. Rogue politicians have ZERO regard for the Constitution or rule of law. Obama, Biden and Pelosi are just a few of these elitist politicians. They're educated, they're special, they've been anointed, they know what's best for you serf... While they live in their bubble... 

If you cannot trust a politician to uphold that single sentence in the BOR then how in the heck can you trust them to not trample and shred the rest of that document. 

They can promise to give you whatever the heck you desire. Whether that is free health care or more money which is worth less every day, or handouts for this and handouts for that. But while they're doing that, making you lazy and complacent, letting you suck on their teet, they are busy raping and pillaging the very ideals and rights that truly make you a free man.

Where there is a will, there's a way. This goes much deeper than clinging to your guns and religion. The gun just guarantees you the right to cling to your religion...


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

6thMichCav said:


> I don't like McCain, and I don't like Obama, and none of the 3rd party candidates are worth a darn. I'm with Dad: "There hasn't been a decent president since Eisenhower."
> 
> That said, NO PRESIDENT PASSES LEGISLATION IN A VACUUM. Someone has to write it, Congress has to pass it, then the President signs (or doesn't sign it). If someone passes stupid legislation, then we have the right to appeal it to the Supreme Court--very handy in Washington D.C. lately.
> 
> ...


Actually some in congress are working on another assault weapon ban, it was written and sponsored by republicans. H.R. 6257 I agree we don't have good choices in 2008.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

remy870 said:


> BUT WE ALL STILL GOT OUR GUNS that never would have got taken away regardless who is in office!


That is because people who don't share your opinion have defended our gun ownership rights as well as the 2nd amendment. You have benefited from other people's effort, and then you claim they did nothing to help you. The fact is that you have rights not because of doing nothing. You have your rights because of what others have done.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Sib said:


> I agree we don't have good choices in 2008.


The choices in 2008 are very clear. Obama is clearly and undoubtedly a worst choice when it comes to the 2nd amendment. A simple read in this thread shows this to be the case.


----------



## Buckrookie (Nov 9, 2007)

Obama Would be the worst choice for President!!! And it would also be a costly one. I can see it now, our whole country being ran like the state of California, now thats a pretty site. The Gun issue is small time when it comes to the problems that would evolve from Electing this IDOIT!!
We all need to remember what this country was built on----- IN GOD WE TRUST> And all the crap about its ok for Gays to Marry, and Obama is such a California Rock Star stuff needs to stop.

And you better know an Obama President, would take guns away within his first term!:smile-mad


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

yoopertoo said:


> That is because people who don't share your opinion have defended our gun ownership rights as well as the 2nd amendment. You have benefited from other people's effort, and then you claim they did nothing to help you. The fact is that you have rights not because of doing nothing. You have your rights because of what others have done.


 That was the point of my statement! When did I ever Claim "they did nothing to help me" you lie and make up statements just like the Republican party!!! There is way to much support for the 2nd amendment for one man to take that away. A sportsman dont need a ak-47 to shoot a deer. Im not really sure how to respond to the Kwame statement posted but granholm is going to take out the trash


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Gotta love a socialist


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

remy870 said:


> That was the point of my statement! When did I ever Claim "they did nothing to help me" you lie and make up statements just like the Republican party!!! There is way to much support for the 2nd amendment for one man to take that away. A sportsman dont need a ak-47 to shoot a deer. Im not really sure how to respond to the Kwame statement posted but granholm is going to take out the trash


It is no different in it's operation than a Remington Woodmaster for the most part? I have hunted with several different high capacity firearms.

Your demeaning anti gun bantor and 26 posts tell me you maybe here for more than your sincere interest in the MI Outdoors and the concerns of sportspersons...

Maybe you found the wrong site to fertilize with your posts:lol:


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

remy870 said:


> When did I ever Claim "they did nothing to help me" you lie and make up ...


Falsely calling me a lier is not very nice now is it.



remy870 said:


> There is way to much support for the 2nd amendment for one man to take that away.


You don't seem to understand how government works. His cooperation with Pelosi and Reid can and would do damage to the 2nd amendment. He also has the power to appoint judges. The judicial system has a huge effect on our 2nd amendment rights as evidenced by Heller.



remy870 said:


> A sportsman dont need a ak-47 to shoot a deer.


The 2nd amendment has *nothing *to do with being a sportsman or shooting deer. The 2nd amendment is a right granted in the bill of rights. It stands on its own with no justification needed. I don't need to prove to anyone why I have the right to own a firearm. I just do.


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

Now how about offering substance to your rambling posts?

My hunch is you can't...

Your drivel here should probably be directed to a more user friendly site if you want sympathy to your anti gun agenda


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

Are you Guys Happy with the Bush party? Yes that makes 27 posts now


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

Sib said:


> Actually some in congress are working on another assault weapon ban, it was written and sponsored by republicans. H.R. 6257 I agree we don't have good choices in 2008.


You must know these folks do not really share the general party views based on their voting records and anti gun aggenda. One bad apple does not mean you throw away the rest of the bushel

Much like your profile here stating you are an "All firearms" kind of guy who happens to support the most anti gun candidate in this election:lol:


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

remy870 said:


> Are you Guys Happy with the Bush party? Yes that makes 27 posts now


What is that?


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

steelsetter said:


> What is that?


 its a question you know


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

the current president


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

remy870 said:


> the current president


How about some substance to your posts here?

The facts should be obvious to a "all firearm" kind of guy like you


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Have no love for Bush or McCain, actually Washington/Lansing in general. Obama, Pelosi, Reed INC. scares the living daylights out of most of the people I know. They want to slowly and systematically control every aspect in your life. Most of our ancestors came here to get away from the stupidity of European socialistic tendencies where you are told what you'll be, do etc. I'm a damn proud American that wants to choose how I will do things, not be told by some politician that's only interested in their pet philosophy and lining their pockets. We're pretty good at figuring things out, why do they think they know better? Why are they afraid of letting do what we're great at?


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

Cobra said:


> Have no love for Bush or McCain, actually Washington/Lansing in general. Obama, Pelosi, Reed INC. scares the living daylights out of most of the people I know. They want to slowly and systematically control every aspect in your life. Most of our ancestors came here to get away from the stupidity of European socialistic tendencies where you are told what you'll be, do etc. I'm a damn proud American that wants to choose how I will do things, not be told by some politician that's only interested in their pet philosophy and lining their pockets. We're pretty good at figuring things out, why do they think they know better? Why are they afraid of letting do what we're great at?[/QUOTE
> 
> However John and Sarah seem to have a *lot* more in common with my interests than the other ones...


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

I love guns not real sure why you think I dont. My point or is that there are bigger issues then guns that make me choose a president. What kind of substance would you like with that? Like the Mcain party you wont talk about Bush Did you vote for him to?:help:


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Like listening to Keith Olberman:lol:


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

remy870 said:


> I love guns not real sure why you think I dont. My point or is that there are bigger issues then guns that make me choose a president. What kind of substance would you like with that? Like the Mcain party you wont talk about Bush Did you vote for him to?:help:


Than how how can you openly support the worst candidate on the issue?

I find that rather odd?


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

He likes socialism


----------



## remy870 (Mar 19, 2008)

If guns are the only issue then no i dont support him but thats just not the case


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

uptracker said:


> Remy, I do agree with some of your views. In the future, we almost need to have the race based on two moderates. I know, it's already that way in a sense, but that's what we need to do.
> 
> In one way or the other, I'm a strong democrat and the next day I'm a strong republican. I feel everyone can be either-or at any point in time.
> 
> ...


If your in that range you aren't paying hardly any taxes anyways. I am not rich but, make enough money that my kids don't count for any tax credits, my wifes student loan interest isn't deductable. Is that fair? Why can't we all have lower taxes and more freedom and less government in our lives.

Sorry to pick on your one thing there. You did have a lot of other things on your list that I agree with. The best way to do those things is Conservatism not Liberalism. Less government allows the free market to help us with most problems that our economy faces.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

GUN OWNERS: Please link onto www.GunBanObama.com and then decide how to vote to maintain the possessions of your firearms. See his 10 point plan. (I am also starting this on the Political Section.)


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

BIGSP said:


> If your in that range you aren't paying hardly any taxes anyways. I am not rich but, make enough money that my kids don't count for any tax credits, my wifes student loan interest isn't deductable. Is that fair? Why can't we all have lower taxes and more freedom and less government in our lives.
> 
> 
> > No offense taken....I know not everybody will agree with my political views.
> ...


----------



## Trev (Aug 5, 2008)

I wish we had something like this in Michigan. http://www.oregondemocrats.org/gun_owners

Then together we could all shoot butterfly's from rainbow stands a top of a non petroleum based gumdrop mountain


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

remy870 said:


> If guns are the only issue then no i dont support him but thats just not the case


The rest may not matter

WHY must this party and many members of the other be so adamant about restricting gun ownership?

WHY do I a top end middle class hard working citizen with no felony convictions. Who has never been in ANY serious trouble with the law, have my RIGHTS restricted

I do not live in a bunker here, but there has to be an aggenda behind this.
And after watching other countries in my lifetime take away or highly restrict this right to their citizenery I see why.

So they cannot stop anything that is shoved down their throats.
They are not safer.
They do not have more robust economies becasue of gun control.

WHY then continue on with this BS?
WHY be afraid of law abiding gun owners?
WHY be afraid of letting me defend myself and family when we all know the goverment can't?

Who cares if my gun safe is full of high capacity firearms, machine guns, hand grenades and I have a cannon in my garage? I am not a threat. 

The people who want me unarmed for a reason I have never fully understood concern me when there seems to be NO LOGICAL REASON for it.

AND Obama is one of the people who fully support stripping me and my family of this RIGHT.

And unless someone can convince me of how this aggenda is going to benefit me, my family and fellow citizens I do not care what else the man has to say. Because once this aggenda is a done deal, they can do whatever they want without fear of backlash or retaliation.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

It is not about target shooting.

It is about being able to defend yourself against a goverment or fellow citizen gone bad. PLAIN AND SIMPLE

And almost every day in the news you can see living examples of what the common man faces in other countries or cities/areas within the United States where this cannot happen

I never want to be a sheep herded into pastures I do not want to lie in as a free citizen...

I never want to be at the mercy of a thug or a goverment gone bad as a free citizen...


----------



## Windnots (Apr 16, 2005)

> There is way to much support for the 2nd amendment for one man to take that away. A sportsman dont need a ak-47 to shoot a deer.


Look at the damage done to the 2nd amendment during Slick Willies terms. One man can make a difference when it comes to the president of the United States. Show me where the second ammendment to the Constitution of the United States adresses hunting. Most of us know why it was put in, but saying it out loud makes you a "gun nut" I guess. 

The only mistake in the drafting of the second amendment IMHO was that it was not drafted as the 1st amendment. As far as I'm concearned without it, all other rights granted us by the drafting of the constitution are in possible jeapordy.


----------



## Line-Loc (Jan 26, 2004)

> The rest may not matter
> 
> WHY must this party and many members of the other be so adamant about restricting gun ownership?
> 
> ...



PLEASE!!!!!!! READ THIS AND THEN READ IT AGAIN...!

Thanks Steel!

Line_Loc!


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

steelsetter said:


> You must know these folks do not really share the general party views based on their voting records and anti gun aggenda. One bad apple does not mean you throw away the rest of the bushel
> 
> Much like your profile here stating you are an "All firearms" kind of guy who happens to support the most anti gun candidate in this election:lol:


You should get your facts straight, because you're obviously a confused individual. I've said on more than one occassion whom I supported.



Sib said:


> Bob Barr is my current choice.





Sib said:


> This has been an issue for me as well. He seems to have picked up the new religion after years of being status quo. But, after weighing my options he (Bob Barr) still has the the commanding lead for Nov.





Sib said:


> ...Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate and I'll cast my vote his way unless something better ends up on another third party ticket.


And of course before I put my support behind Bob Barr I was supporting Ron Paul.



Sib said:


> Ballot number 40 with no one behind me, scanned as ballot 43. One Ron Paul vote, which was really a no confidence vote for the republican party. The democratic ballot had the non-committed choice, but not the please commit them choice. :lol: I joke, of course. Mike Gravel seems a lot like our Bart Stupak, decent people.





Sib said:


> I will be casting a vote for Ron Paul Tuesday and will be voting 3rd party in Nov.


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

yoopertoo said:


> Falsely calling me a lier is not very nice now is it.
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand how government works. His cooperation with Pelosi and Reid can and would do damage to the 2nd amendment. He also has the power to appoint judges. The judicial system has a huge effect on our 2nd amendment rights as evidenced by Heller.
> ...


Just so mr Remy is clear. The BOR puts in words, enumerated rights that pre-exist it, in turn spelling out to the Federal Gov't that it may NOT encroach upon them. After 219 years we see how well that's working with today's politicians, on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

Sure would like you to swing behind John until we can get an electable 3rd party candidate on the ballot.



Sib said:


> You should get your facts straight, because you're obviously a confused individual. I've said on more than one occassion whom I supported.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Sib said:


> _Bob Barr is my current choice._


And clearly in this election a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Obama.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

any comment on the fact that mccain voted to appoint breyer, souter, and ginsberg - the three out of four of the dissenting justices in heller vs. dc?


----------



## Huron River Dan (Apr 16, 2001)

when it comes to the working man...Democrat or Republican are all sitting in their Ivory tower in DC making decisions that effect all aspects of our lives. NAFTA who if you recall was signed into law by Bill Clinton, working people seem to forget that fact. Now to the heart of the matter: 2nd Amendment. It was written by our Founding Fathers as protection for the citizens of this Republic from government officials who become tyranical. That is the main purpose of the Amendment, and that is why liberal politicians who tax and spend hate it.

Dan


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> any comment on the fact that mccain voted to appoint breyer, souter, and ginsberg - the three out of four of the dissenting justices in heller vs. dc?


This does not change the fact that a McCain/Palin ticket will give us stronger 2nd amendment judicial nominees then Obama. Guaranteed.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

I see alot of bitching about gun-grabbing, and the BOR, and the Constitution, and yada yada......but not a GD word about that pathetic fool in the White House and the butt-wiping with the Constitution these criminals have engaged in.

How about warrantless wiretapping? Anyone here remember THAT amendment? The outing of a covert CIA agent working on WMD IN IRAQ, which Bush I called treasonous? 

You people want to rehash the same "they're coming for our guns!!!" argument year after year after year after year. It happened in 1992, remember? Clinton (then described, per usual, as "the most liberal candidate ever") was gonna take all the guns. Him and the democratic congress. Well, they had the chance, and what happened? Nothing.

If anyone respects the Constitution and is prepared to abide by the SCOTUS' starre decises re: the second amendment, it's Obama. Bush and the neoconservatives (including McSame) have manifestly proven the Consitution and laws don't mean jack to them. 

I own a mix of firearms numbering about 15, and don't allow myself to be scared into fearing for their existence or my ability to own them by fear mongers like the NRA. They clearly have a vested interest in keeping their "gun grabbers" bogeyman alive and well. 

However, it strikes me that Obama had a point about people clinging to their guns and religion. I'm surprised that so many got their undies in a bunch over some political incorrectness. I thought all the righties were against that?


----------



## RAMBOY (Jul 20, 2008)

Hart said:


> I see alot of bitching about gun-grabbing, and the BOR, and the Constitution, and yada yada......but not a GD word about that pathetic fool in the White House and the butt-wiping with the Constitution these criminals have engaged in.
> 
> How about warrantless wiretapping? Anyone here remember THAT amendment? The outing of a covert CIA agent working on WMD IN IRAQ, which Bush I called treasonous?
> 
> ...


 


I guess the Clinton "assault weapons" ban and the Chicago area gun bans are just bad dreams.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Hart said:


> You people want to rehash the same "they're coming for our guns!!!" argument year after year after year after year. ... Well, they had the chance, and what happened? Nothing.
> ...
> I own a mix of firearms numbering about 15, and don't allow myself to be scared into fearing for their existence or my ability to own them by fear mongers like the NRA.


The only reason more anti gun laws are not passed is because of organizations, including the NRA, that prevent them from doing so. You are naive if you think otherwise. You own guns and you benefit from all the work others do to keep your rights. Very sad.


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

Most of the politicians in Washington wipe their butts with the US Constitution. Not just Bush. The sooner you figure out that the President doesn't really have "much" power without the backing of Congress the sooner you'll understand that all of the bad juju comes from more than just one man in a little white house.

Every time we're trampled on it breeds anger just a little bit more, unless we as citizens actually believe this trampling is for our "own good". I fear that in a large segment of the population there are just too many heads stuck in the sand who don't or won't give a dang.

Eventually the trampling will have to stop. You'll need your 15 guns then. Lets just hope that by then we haven't been trampled on to the point where your 15 guns have to shoot a bb loaded manually from the front with your powder lit by a stone. 

After all that is the goal of those in Washington... to keep the citizens barefoot and pregnant...


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

i simply cannot come up with another situation in life, be it business, family, doctors, etc., where it is advantageous to choose someone based upon their opinion of a single subject. seems shortsighted, and not a tactic that would seemingly breed a successfully and enjoyable life.

furthermore, i find it rather disconcerting when issues boil down to "us or them". this country was founded upon a systems of checks and balances. recent administrations have sought to side step those checks and balances and seek undue executive power.

whether i agree with their stance on issues is irrelevant. the ends simply do not justify the means.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

yoopertoo said:


> The only reason more anti gun laws are not passed is because of organizations, including the NRA, that prevent them from doing so. You are naive if you think otherwise. You own guns and you benefit from all the work others do to keep your rights. Very sad.


The reason more anti gun laws are not passed is because, nationally, gun control is not the issue it once was. There was little to no talk of it in the past two presidential elections, and there has been zero talk of it in this election. 

As I mentioned, Clinton and the democratic party had a wide open door with the welcome mat laid out in 1992-1993 - and nothing happened. Zero, zilch, nada (for those of you in Rio Linda).

As I also mentioned, it is the democratic party that more closely adheres to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The SCOTUS has declared the 2nd amendment right to bear arms to be a personal right. I highly doubt you will in our lifetime see a democratic president try and overturn that.

Conversely, you currently have a conservative presidential candidate who has, in so many words, stated his intention of overturning a longstanding SCOTUS decision (Roe v. Wade). An utter disregard for the principle of stare dicisis, which should be the foundation for any Supreme Court Justice's personal jurisprudence. 

This has become a hallmark for modern conservative "principle": the only laws that apply to us are the ones we SAY apply to us. If we don't agree with them, they don't apply. See also "Bush Signing Statements". 

It's laughable on its face. It was all about the "rule of law" during the 8 year fishing expedition in Bill Clinton's pants. But as soon as Dim Son took office..........forget about it. These people have violated the Constitution and broken laws with impunity. That's just plain un-American, if you ask me.

My position is that NO ONE is above the law. Period. No discussion, no negotiation, end of story. The conservative party seemed to agree with this sentiment in the 1990s. However, that all seemed to fly out the window once one of theirs took office. I can't think of a more glaring, hypocritical double standard since I took an interest in politics twenty-some years ago.


----------



## HTC (Oct 6, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> any comment on the fact that mccain voted to appoint breyer, souter, and ginsberg - the three out of four of the dissenting justices in heller vs. dc?


Sure I'll comment on that one. The Senate's role in confirming judicial nominees, (also called advise and consent) is to determine if the nominee is qualified for the position. Period. 

The vote is not based on whether or not the nominee's views are aligned with the Senator's. In fact ideology should not play a role. Unfortunately going back to Clarence Thomas ideology plays a huge role today in deciding not only if a justice gets confirmed but if he/she even gets voted upon. 

Somewhere along the line many Senators forgot their role and thought they should be picking the nominee instead of giving a simple up or down vote based on qualification.

I have no problem with John McCain having voted for the three justices you mentioned. He was not saying he agreed with their views, he was saying they are not unqualified for the job. Big difference.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> i simply cannot come up with another situation in life, be it business, family, doctors, etc., where it is advantageous to choose someone based upon their opinion of a single subject.


It is also obvious that each and everyone one of us each and every day weights factors in our decisions. Not all factors are equal. The bill of rights is very high on my list. A candidate's support for something so fundamental as the 2nd amendment is very important to me. The very idea that if I were to live in a certain part of this country I would be a criminal for no other reason then my position of a hand gun for self protection is deeply and fundamentally wrong. Also, once it can be done in one part of the US it can happen anywhere!


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Hart said:


> The reason more anti gun laws are not passed is because, nationally, gun control is not the issue it once was. There was little to no talk of it in the past two presidential elections, and there has been zero talk of it in this election.


This is a direct result of the pro-gun lobby and pro-gun support in America. It is not because there is a lack of will on the part of those who would restrict our rights. Politicians fear what organizations like the NRA can do at the ballot box. You say "look no laws, therefore there is no desire to pass the laws". This is ridiculous. That is like saying a bird flies because there is no gravity. No, a bird flies because the bird works like hell to stay in the air.


Hart said:


> The SCOTUS has declared the 2nd amendment right to bear arms to be a personal right. I highly doubt you will in our lifetime see a democratic president try and overturn that.


First, Obama voted against Alito and Roberts. They were key in that decision. This was a CLOSE vote. Your constitutional right to bear arms hung by a thread. The NRA and other pro gun groups WERE VERY INSTRUMENTAL in this decision! If Obama would have had his way I'm convinced we would have no 2nd amendment. This is no exaggeration.

Second, this is silly talk. Anti gunners are not stupid. They use much more clever ways to restrict your rights. The Heller case is just a hurdle to overcome for them. If they have their way YOUR rights will be restricted in much more subtle ways like stupid non-sense ammunition restrictions, etc, etc, etc ... There are an endless list of ways to stealthily restrict the 2nd amendment until it is meaningless.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

HTC said:


> Sure I'll comment on that one. The Senate's role in confirming judicial nominees, (also called advise and consent) is to determine if the nominee is qualified for the position. Period.
> 
> The vote is not based on whether or not the nominee's views are aligned with the Senator's. In fact ideology should not play a role. Unfortunately going back to Clarence Thomas ideology plays a huge role today in deciding not only if a justice gets confirmed but if he/she even gets voted upon.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with this sentiment at all. In fact, I agree with it 100%. 

Unfortunately, in today's hyper-partisan climate, both parties (or at least the conservative party - the lefties dont' sound as urgent) have realized that the real brass ring in the national elections - for good or ill - has become the judiciary. 

Judicial activism is not the divine providence of either party, contrary to what some may charge.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

yoopertoo said:


> This is a direct result of the pro-gun lobby and pro-gun support in America. It is not because there is a lack of will on the part of those who would restrict our rights. Politicians fear what organizations like the NRA can do at the ballot box. You say "look no laws, therefore there is no desire to pass the laws". This is ridiculous. That is like saying a bird flies because there is no gravity. No, a bird flies because the bird works like hell to stay in the air.
> 
> First, Obama voted against Alito and Roberts. They were key in that decision. This was a CLOSE vote. Your constitutional right to bear arms hung by a thread. The NRA and other pro gun groups WERE VERY INSTRUMENTAL in this decision! If Obama would have had his way I'm convinced we would have no 2nd amendment. This is no exaggeration.
> 
> Second, this is silly talk. Anti gunners are not stupid. They use much more clever ways to restrict your rights. The Heller case is just a hurdle to overcome for them. If they have their way YOUR rights will be restricted in much more subtle ways like stupid non-sense ammunition restrictions, etc, etc, etc ... There are an endless list of ways to stealthily restrict the 2nd amendment until it is meaningless.


First, what empirical evidence do you have to support your contention that "this is a direct result of the pro-gun lobby...."? You provide none, and further do not provide anything to speak to my point of Clinton and a democratically-controlled Congress doing nothing to stomp on the 2nd amendment. What juice did the NRA have over them? They've never voted democratic. It's got nothing to do with "look, now laws so there's no desire to pass them". If the desire was there, it would have been acted on. And as I pointed out, it wasn't. Do you have a supportable answer (as opposed to opinion, speculation or conjecture) for why it wasn't? My position is simply that it wasn't a priority. Had it been, there would have been action. It could have been taken to a much less conservative SCOTUS, but it wasn't. Why?

In today's highly charged partisan atmosphere, Obama (along with 41 other senators) voted against Alito because clearly Bush was packing the courts with hard-right, "safe" conservative justices he was confident would toe the conservative line on EVERY issue. He had tried to do the same with Harriet Miers before Alito, but that was clearly (another) act of Bush cronyism. You'll recall that it was conservatives who were most against her. Senatorial decisions on both sides of the aisle, I'm confident, go well beyond a single issue, be it guns, God, choice, whatever. 

This all speaks to the point I made in answering another post here: the brass ring in today's presidential elections is the judiciary.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

yoopertoo said:


> It is also obvious that each and everyone one of us each and every day weights factors in our decisions. Not all factors are equal. The bill of rights is very high on my list. A candidate's support for something so fundamental as the 2nd amendment is very important to me. The very idea that if I were to live in a certain part of this country I would be a criminal for no other reason then my position of a hand gun for self protection is deeply and fundamentally wrong. Also, once it can be done in one part of the US it can happen anywhere!


I heard on one of the talk radio shows just today that there are areas of Texas where it's still "unsafe" to talk about supporting a black man for president. In fact, there are still areas of Texas today where they find it sporting to chain and drag black people behind a pickup truck for a couple miles of back country road. 

What do you think of the idea of that if YOU were to live in a certain part of the country, you could be chained and dragged behind a pickup truck for a couple of miles of back country road.............just because of the color of your skin?

Do you also consider that "deeply and fundamentally wrong"? 

The 2nd amendment is important to me as well, but I offer this for the simple reason of perspective.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Hart said:


> First, what empirical evidence do you have to support your contention that "this is a direct result of the pro-gun lobby...."? You provide none, ...
> Do you have a supportable answer (as opposed to opinion, speculation or conjecture) for why it wasn't?


What empirical evidence do you have that the Democrats do not submit gun legislation because they have no desire to do so? Do you have a supportable answer (as opposed to opinion, speculation or conjecture) for why they acted the way they did?


Hart said:


> ...and further do not provide anything to speak to my point of Clinton and a democratically-controlled Congress doing nothing to stomp on the 2nd amendment. What juice did the NRA have over them?


Member votes. The same "juice" the unions have over our political system.


Hart said:


> They've never voted democratic.


Well the NRA does not vote. Its members do. The NRA has and continues to support pro-gun democrats.


Hart said:


> ...Obama (along with 41 other senators) voted against Alito because ...


Your political spin aside ... the fact remains we have two strong 2nd amendment supporters on the court that Obama would not have there. I'm very confident that his choices would not be very friendly to the 2nd amendment.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Hart said:


> What do you think of the idea of that if YOU were to live in a certain part of the country, you could be chained and dragged behind a pickup truck for a couple of miles of back country road.............just because of the color of your skin?
> ...
> Do you also consider that "deeply and fundamentally wrong"?


It's horrific. It's a heinous criminal act.



Hart said:


> The 2nd amendment is important to me as well, but I offer this for the simple reason of perspective.


How did this deepen our perspective? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of discussion. Please be frank and state clearly what you mean.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

yoopertoo said:


> It's horrific. It's a heinous criminal act.
> 
> 
> How did this deepen our perspective? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of discussion. Please be frank and state clearly what you mean.


The perspective is this: you complain that you would be criminal in some places in this country because you own guns.

In some places, people are killed for no particular reason other than they're the wrong color.

If this doesn't make your concern somewhat pale by comparison, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "perspective".


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

yoopertoo said:


> What empirical evidence do you have that the Democrats do not submit gun legislation because they have no desire to do so? Do you have a supportable answer (as opposed to opinion, speculation or conjecture) for why they acted the way they did?
> 
> Member votes. The same "juice" the unions have over our political system.
> 
> ...


My empirical evidence is in the fact that a democratic president and a democratic congress did nothing to stomp on the 2nd amendment. It doesn't get any more plain than that. 

If the democratic-leaning unions have as much juice as you say they do, then we have nothing to fear from Obama or any other democrat...right?

If you want to start playing semantic games about the NRA not voting (but their members do) - I'm not interested. 

The fact is, Obama said he supported the SCOTUS decision on Heller. Do you have a specific reason to disbelieve him? 

I've already made the additional points on who subscribes to the rule of law, stare decisis, etc. 

Feel free to explicitly identify the "political spin". I'm not much into generalities and platitudes.


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

Hart said:


> My empirical evidence is in the fact that a democratic president and a democratic congress did nothing to stomp on the 2nd amendment. It doesn't get any more plain than that.


Were you asleep in 1994??????


----------



## Huron River Dan (Apr 16, 2001)

and politicians have other ways to go after our rights; for example the Schumer proposal on an ammunition tax. The tax rate that was proposed was so high that the average working man would'nt be able to afford to buy ammunition for sporting type arms. Now onto the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban; while on paper looked to be "harmless", in actual language had items that allowed the addition of any weapon that was deemed worthy to be added to the list. 

Dan


----------

