Obama and Guns: Two Different Views

Obama and Guns: Two Different Views

www.foxnews.com

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

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

Anyone considering voting for this guy might want to reconsider. His views of guns and gun ownership are something that should scare Everyone. What kind of a person does not think it is legitimate to be able to protect yourself with a gun? This is pure and simply crazy. What little respect I had for the guy is now Gone.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm essentially a one issue voter. I like my guns. I despise any and all restrictions on them. I figure as long as I and my neighbors are armed, practicing and carrying it doesn't much matter what else any politician does.

Obama never had my vote. I admit he was interesting/curious until I heard that bit about him wanting to ban carry on a federal level. Now he's just another uppity Ivory-Tower fascist from an urban center that knows jack about the rest of America. Maybe he should just run for mayor of the P.O.S. city he's from and leave the rest of America alone.

I figure it's about time we split the country up. You can't have city people governing rural people and you can't have hoplophobes governing the armed.
It hasn't worked, it isn't working and it won't work.

I truly doubt Obama will ban handguns, or even be able to accomplish that as President.

I wouldn't be too worried about it, he'll have his hands full cleaning up Bush's mess anyway.

I admit I've tried to figure out Obama's stand on guns and I still can't. For .. against .. for ... What I think I've come up with is that he wants to ban them from law abiding citizens which means that the only ones with guns would be the criminals who get them illegally.

I could be wrong .. like I said I can't figure out his stand on this subject.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Are you talking about by his voting record?

I find voting record to be like that. Sometimes a politician will vote for, sometimes against, but it has more to do with pork-rolled bills than the issue.

Just wondering if you were going by voting or by words?

Originally posted by Sublime620
going by voting or by words?

Words. I'm having a hard time following what he's saying on this. I'm trying to. But it's just not coming together for me.

Obama can forget my vote then.

This election is crucial to the future of America. Choices are now dow to Clinton, Obabma, and McCain.

I am a firm advocate on allowing citizens to own guns. My view is that I do not want the only people having guns are just cops and criminals. Taking guns out of the citizen's hands is only asking for:

More crime - criminal activity will skyrocket if they think we don't have guns. Sure, we need to give them more confidence in a more successful crime spree.

More police state like control - with the skyrocketing crime rate and our inability to defend ourselves will cause us to want the police to so something about it. This will (IMHO) force us to accept further and stricter laws which will no doubt further infringe on our seemingly dwindling civil liberties.

Agriculture will suffer a shock - Hunter's play an integral role in maintaining the population of certain game. Deer, for example, ravage and descimate fields of crops if the population is not limited. This equals less food for us and thus higher prices at the store. Ask anyone who has tried to grow a garden in an area with deer. It ain't happening.

Think I may be voting for McCain.

reply to post by Amaxium


Honestly, don't let a thread sway your vote.

Go research it yourself and make that decision. I like ATS, but I'd hate to see one post and one opinion be the reason you decided NOT to or TO vote for someone.

I have not let it sway my vote. Obama has awlays supported gun control and past interviews can reveal that he ultimatly would like to ban guns. Clinton, although evasive on beating around the bush, will continue to impose gun control law after gun control law basically furthering the Brady bill when she was last in office. (Her hubby was just a tool) I don't care for McCain entirely and would prefer Ron Paul, however I agree with McCain more than I do Obama or Clinton.

I have been doing research. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there. Thank you for your concern, though. I agree that most ATSers need to further research rather than rely singularly on that 1 post they saw on here as sources and journalist like to spin thier article one way and then another to appeal to a specific audience.

You can go here to check Obama out . www.ontheissues.org...

The Dem's will try to hide their position on firearms because they know it will beat them.

So unless you have a blue dog democrat to vote for, your firearms are in grave jeopardy.

Roper

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Amaxium

 

Honestly, don't let a thread sway your vote.

Go research it yourself and make that decision. I like ATS, but I'd hate to see one post and one opinion be the reason you decided NOT to or TO vote for someone.

Why not let this thread sway your vote? It is more than a thread, it is a link to the facts about Obamas position on guns. Anyone or any candidate who wants to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens can go to hell. I cant believe that this is escaping most main stream media outlets though. Or maybe I can.

reply to post by bakednutz


I just don't think it's a good idea to open a thread, read an opinion, click one link, and then change your vote.

There's too much information out there on each candidate to have votes being swung off of one link.

But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by Sublime620


Which is worse, reading facts like direct quotes and voting records found in a thread on some forum like this one or sitting in front of your TV and having your opinion shaped by some asinine commercial about how Obama is going to rescue the elderly from the jaws of death or how Clinton is going to be there when the phone rings asking for whatever she'll pick it up after 13 rings?

Hell, I'm sure there are people out there who'll pull the lever for whichever candidate has a hotter chick holding their campaign sign out in front of the polling place.

reply to post by Sublime620


Normally I would agree. But with probably the most important issue only second to free speech I disagree. He mine as well say he wants to put a muzzle on the american people so they cannot criticize the government or anyone else, guns are Very important.

Originally posted by bakednutz

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

I don't even know what to believe about this. If you go to the original link (Faux News) and click it to read the above quote, the "yes" is a link that takes you to here.

There, we find the following garble of a paragraph. Read it carefully. Anyone know what it means?

Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.

And don't forget to read what his campaign actually says about it:

But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views,
...
On guns, the fact sheet says he “has consistently supported common-sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Now, I don't expect Obama to join the NRA, but I do not believe that he supports a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns. There's nothing credible to support that statement.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

I'm not sure what you think is garbled. It looks pretty clear:

Ban handguns? "Yes."

His campaign is trying to wash his record.

He still has preference though. Rin Tin Clinton is mortifying and Traitor McCain is Bush 3.0. No matter what Obama's beliefs are he is still bound by the Constitution and if the Supreme Court rules against the DC handgun ban those beliefs will be powerless (at least until he refills the seats). He won't have my vote regardless... I would feel dirtier than if I spent a night at a Motel 6 with Paris Hilton. If I vote it will be for the Libertarian nominee. But if the rest of the herd puts him on the block I'll be a lot less apprehensive.

reply to post by bakednutz


reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I think you're both misreading my intentions.

This thread is informative and should certainly be thrown into the mix on deciding who to vote for. I'm just saying, one topic may not be worth changing a vote over. Especially since it would be fairly unlikely that Obama would ever get any bills passed to ban handguns.

Imagine how many people probably voted for Bush because they agreed with one issue he stood for. Oops?

**Edited to add:

Plus, it's just one side to the story. If he is really concerned with this issue, then he/she should go do some independent research, don't you think?

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Sublime620]

Obama's latest statement tells alot about how he feels ...

"... clinging to guns and religion ... '

Sounds condenscending to me. It comes across as him looking down his long nose and sniffing .... at guns and religion.

Freudian slip I guess.

In the US Senate, Obama voted to ban gun confiscation during emergencies and natural disasters. Hillary vote against the bill.

While Obama supports gun control, he doesn't support confiscating people's guns. It will be up to congress to determine the nation's laws.