Obama's Long Anti-Gun Record

The Republican National Committee has released this web video that points out Barack Obama's track record of voting in favor of anti-gun legislation. According to the video, Obama is out of touch with American values because, among other things, he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.

He wants to disarm the populace, which is the first action of a dictator. Remember what happened in Germany under Hitler!

Although I can't quite make the same comparison as Hitler, since there are TONS of people who agree with gun legislation, this is definitely NOT a selling point for me when it comes to Obama.

It plain ol' sucks.

Well, Hillary's record is considerably worse, actually.

Obama voted to ban sweeping firearms seizures like we saw after Katrina (disarming the populace indeed) - Hillary was one of the few who voted to allow those kinds of random gun sweeps.

He's also on the record as stating that he believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one (IE the claim that the Second only applies to the "militia"). Hillary has never made her views clear on this.

It's also worth noting that Obama's record on gun control grew much more moderate once he became a US Senator representing all of Illinois and not just a state senator representing urban Chicago.

While Obama's weak support of the Second Amendment and the space program are two positions I can't say I am delighted about, there are much bigger issues at stake this election cycle. And a closer examination of Obama's gun control position shows it's nowhere near as bad as certain political factions would like us to think.

[edit on 5/19/08 by xmotex]

Don't be fooled. Obama is anti-2nd Amendment as it was initially intended and so much so that the NRA-PVF gave him an "F" in the 2004 election. There's no reason to believe that that will change.

Obama’s hostility toward the Second Amendment is so well known and well documented that in the 2004 elections, NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) issued Obama a well-deserved “F” grade. Obama is anti-gun. Period.

www.nraila.org...

While Obama claims to believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, his position on "common-sense gun control" is such that he supports every back door legislation that would place undue burdens on lawful gun owners. The burden always falls on the lawful gun owners.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.

www.breitbart.com...

Here Obama speaks of the 2nd Amendment as though it was designed to protect hunters and sport shooter, not as means to protect the right to self-protection.

IN NASHUA on Friday, Sen. Barack Obama talked about the 2nd Amendment as if it existed only to guarantee the right to hunt wild game.

"I don't hunt myself, but I respect hunters and sportsmen," he said. "But I don't know of any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer, and if you do, you shouldn't be hunting."

You also don't shoot deer with a handgun, but what has that to do with the 2nd Amendment? Absolutely nothing.

/4dtvfc

Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington 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 that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.

/44w9c3

An email from the Obama campaign.

From: "Obama for America Correspondence Team"
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 9:58 AM
Subject: Response to Your Message to Senator Obama

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected.

We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights.

I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

www.ncc-1776.org...

Obama opposes concealed carry licenses. I do, too, but I think anyone should be allowed to carry concealed, license or not.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

www.pittsburghlive.com...

[edit on 2008/5/19 by GradyPhilpott]

Well, to me, this is simply another reason why I would never vote for this person. I also disagree with his views on partial birth abortion ( he is in favor of it ), and other key issues.

Let's hope he does not succeed in his quest to destroy this nation.

reply to post by jsobecky


"Quest to destroy the nation?"

I think that's a LIIIIIIITTTLLE over-extreme...

reply to post by bigbert81


I'm trying a new approach. I'm going with the "sensationalism" angle that is so prevalent among the liberals here, when they speak of conservatives. I want to see how it works.

Originally posted by xmotex
While Obama's weak support of the Second Amendment and the space program ....

xmotex .. did you mean to say it like this - While Obama's complete lack of respect for, and intention to destroy, the Second Amendment and the space program ....

That's more accurate, eh?

Originally posted by bigbert81
"Quest to destroy the nation?"
I think that's a LIIIIIIITTTLLE over-extreme...

I think it's dead on accurate.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Remember what happened in Germany under Hitler!

Obama's approach is different, but the end result will be similar - IMHO.
YES .. I mean it.

Obama has the same pathology as dictators and 'leaders' deluded with themselves. The constant self-reverent, self-referent, narcissistic, messianic comments are just like the leaders of Iran and N. Korea - but wrapped with a different bow.


[edit on 5/20/2008 by FlyersFan]

xmotex .. did you mean to say it like this - While Obama's complete lack of respect for, and intention to destroy, the Second Amendment and the space program ....

That's more accurate, eh?

No, as I've come to expect from you, it's pure hyperbole, and distorted transparently partisan BS.

"Weak support" means exactly what it means.

He has supported the Second Amendment, and publicly renounced the idea (popular on the left) that it doesn't grant an individual right and only applies to a militia.

That's one hell of a far cry from showing "intention to destroy the Second Amendment", a claim I notice (like most of your claims) you have absolutely no evidence to back up.

The space program - again, he is a weak supporter of the space program, but he sure as hell has never proposed to eliminate it

That is, quite simply, a lie and one I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of, but a lie nonetheless.

Not that that's a big shock at this point

Originally posted by xmotex
pure hyperbole, and distorted transparently partisan BS.

nope. Just the truth.
And even some of those that support him say the same

So much for partisan BS. And btw - I'm not voting for McCain.

The space program - again, he is a weak supporter of the space program, but he sure as hell has never proposed to eliminate it

When he proposes to kill major international space projects 'just for five years' to (allegedly) pay for education, then he is in essence going to kill it. Once a program is killed, it is very hard to get $$$ to restart. And our international partners won't trust us to enter into contracts with us again. He either knows it will die and he can use the money elsewhere .. or he has an incredible lack of understanding of economics and international business contracts.

(btw - this is nothing new. Al Gore said much the same thing)


[edit on 5/20/2008 by FlyersFan]

Other than the fact this man is a Marxist and closet racist with ties to domestic terror groups (Weatherman underground ), this is the main reason I would never consider voting for this nimrod. His voting policies are further to the left than Stalin and when the democrats, along with the spineless republicans, get a 60 seat majority in the senate, it's over. This guy will pack the courts with justices that would make Trotsky smile. This will have repercussions far beyond his...(shudder)...presidency.

If these Marxists think that people are going to comply(especially on a state and local level) with their moronic gun legislation, they have another thing coming. They'll have to lock up not only the citizens, all the local law enforcement (yes they have private firearms as well) and most of the military. With this Obamanation in charge, they will go after the ammunition, because total confiscation will be impossible. God (or whoever you pray to, Bill Murray, lettuce...) help us.

Originally posted by bigbert81

"Quest to destroy the nation?"

I think that's a LIIIIIIITTTLLE over-extreme...

You can't gut the Constitution without destroying the nation.

Wow. Seriously?

You people think he's on a 'quest to destroy the nation'?

Grady, I can see what YOU mean, but like I said, TONS of people have these same views, and I highly doubt that their main goal is to destroy the nation. All I'm saying is that those words are a little over the top.

I've already said I don't agree with ANYTHING that hinders ANY of our rights, 2nd amendment included.

If I had to pick one candidate who I believe will truly start putting holds on more of our constitutional rights, it would have to be McCain, for the reason that he is all for the war and the 'fight against terrorism', which means more Patriot Act like bills, stripping away our privacy and freedoms.

reply to post by jsobecky
Pfffft ! The nation is already ruined and another puppet elected by the underworld is just a disciple of Bush & Cheney, that is, if there is another president.
I'm not convinced there will be another president. I could be wrong, :shk: i guess we just have to wait and see what develops.
Obama is nothing more than an extension of Bush and so is Hillary.

All guns will be collected, they have to be for the coming dictatorship.

Originally posted by bigbert81
Grady, I can see what YOU mean, but like I said, TONS of people have these same views, and I highly doubt that their main goal is to destroy the nation. .

BUt they aren't the ones trying to be POTUS.
They aren't the ones saying that they will 'change the world'.
This guy has the views, the plans, and the arrogance to make it happen.
(not to mention minions who will do his bidding)

reply to post by bigbert81


John Mccain is a spineless liberal in republican clothing. I think it is quite apparent where Obama's record stands on gun control, but this so called conservative and defender of the second amendment is a blatant lie. Just look at his record on these issues. Once again, no one worth voting for but plenty to tar and feather.

McCain voting record from GOA

These candidates are one and the same one is a Marxist and one is a Liberal.

What are the alternatives to Obama?

Clinton- even worse.

McCain- erratic record on gun rights. From GOA:

McCain's GOA rating is F-

But there is an alternative:

Ron Paul -

The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's A+ rating, Paul has been a lead sponsor of legislation in Congress attempting to restore individual Second Amendment rights.[citation needed] He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.

In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."[139] Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer."

Source: Political positions of Ron Paul

Yeah, I'm all for Ron Paul, brother, but it's a wasted vote.

If I'm going to vote, it's going to be for a candidate who might actually win, so that I can help control the lesser of the evils.

I see it all as a mute point. We have lost congress to the lobyists. We have no more checks and balances. Our judges are making law and not interpeting it. Why do we think that the president will really make any changes? We need to get back to the laws of the land and give the govt. back to the people. Until the people take charge there is no hope. Elimination of the banking cartel and big business buying of the congress will have to stop. We need torte reform and we need it now. We do not need a lawyer to tell us what the constitution says. We do not need the Govt. to tell us how to live our lives. We the people are the govt. It is our own fault that we are in this mess. It will be we ourselves that will get us out.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

p.s. I voted for Ron Paul in our primary

Originally posted by bigbert81
Yeah, I'm all for Ron Paul, brother, but it's a wasted vote.

If I'm going to vote, it's going to be for a candidate who might actually win, so that I can help control the lesser of the evils.

Don't let your voice of suffrage be lost in the political wilderness. Choosing the lesser of two evils is never a good call! Imagine if you had a choice between Stalin and Hitler.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-Benjamin Franklin

Follow your own signature, my friend. Vote on conscience, not on mitigation.