Obama aims for gun vote

It's not complicated, all the current candidates suck.

Obama lies.

Hillary lies.

McCain is a canned democrat with a republican party brand name. He's a politician so he's also probably lying.

The pro-2A voters don't have a candidate this year. Obama is not a friend of the RKBA. But neither is Hillary or John-Boy. The NRA already lost in this election. It is just a matter of whether we get screwed by someone with a (-D) or an (-R) behind their name.

Okay. So where were Obama and Clinton when they had an opportunity to step up and sign their names to the congressional amicus brief in support of the individual right to keep and bear arms?

I'm really not sure about McCain, but it really doesn't make any difference because; I will vote for Dr. Ron Paul in the general election even if it invalidates my ballot.

McCain at least signed the Congressional amicus brief in support of an individual RKBA.

Have ANY of you folks noticed that whenever Obama or Clinton refer to guns, they ALWAYS link the possession of guns to hunting.

By doing so, they are actually DENYING the full meaning of the Second Amendment, which is to provide an armed citizenry equipped to deal with government tyranny or foreign agression on these shores.

There isn't a breath of a whisper about hunting in the papers of the Founders, yet it seems that every other paragraph in their writings was about resisting tyranny.

The simple facts are, in the context and time of the Founders, that there was plenty of game to take for the table, and it was so routinely done that none of the Founders seem to have envisioned a day when hunting would have to be regulated.

To the contrary, in England, hunting was a privilege reserved for the landed aristocracy and their chosen few guests, and had been for hundreds of years before the Founders.

As gun-owners, we MUST resist this calming blandishment of being offered the "generous" opportunity to maintain hunting weapons, but for "safety's sake", be denied military arms and ammunition.

The Second is all about a well-regulated militia armed with MILITARY weapons forming to fend off tyranny from our governments or forces of invasion from elsewhere, and that is ALL it is about.

No more discussion of hunting and the Second in the same breath, please. When you DO discuss the Second that way, it is obvious that you have drunk the "kool-aid" of the gun-banners.

I have to disagree somewhat with RIVRDOG. There is much more than a breath or whisper in the papers of the Founders about hunting, and it relates to the Bill of Rights.

All of the pro-DC arguments in the Heller case using historical information emphasize the well regulated militia language and interpret the right to be dependent on service in such a militia (of course under government control).

The Founders used the Second Amendment to protect the future existence of an armed populace familiar with their own arms. The historical sources clearly indicate that Americans were familiar with their own arms more from hunting and shooting at marks than they were from any military training.

The right to keep and bear arms language is more broad than simply military arms, it includes any arms for any legitimate purpose, including hunting, target shooting, and even more important and almost never mentioned, self defense. Mutual defense against tyranny is based upon self defense and having arms with which the people are familiar due to regular and common use.

I have emphasized these historical points in The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Defintive History of the Second Amendment. So far, very few people know that this book even exists. However, it was cited to the Supreme Court seventeen times in various briefs supporting an individual right in the Heller case.

Hopefully, the Court will not ignore all of this directly relevant historical information. From the oral arguments, it appears that most of the justices are aware of this information and will take it into consideration in their decision. If they do not, the historical facts will contradict the decision.

For information on The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, go to this URL:

http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/

McCain opposed the assault weapons ban back in the early 90s when EVERYONE thought that it was completely safe to shit on gun owners. McCain didn't have to support us. In fact, McCain took heat for supporting us.

I am as harsh a critic of McCain as anyone and I have been very annoyed at him for McCain Feingold and for his numerous ill guided crusades against non-problems, but his heart is in the right place. Lying or not, his actions tell a tale that I like.

not "complicated", just "manipulated confusion" from the obamessiah, for the mindless minions who can't comprehend a lying liberal when they hear one...

The statements by Clinton and Obama recall the statements by the Gore-Lieberman campaign when they said, "We are not going to take a single rifle or shotgun away from a single American hunter."

Every gun-owner knew what that meant: federal handgun licenses (at best!) and, at worst, forfeiture of all privately-owned handguns.

"We are not going to take a single rifle or shotgun away from a single American hunter."

That's what Michael Moore said, too. I think that these folks rely on the widespread ignorance that surrounds the 2A. Sure, it's about hunting, but it's (and you might even argue principally so) about so very much more than that. During the Heller arguments, it was clear that the name of the game - the salient purpose - being argued was defense of self and home. For the court to acknowledge this as one of the primary purposes of the amendment would be a very important step.

In so much as there is a huge and growing number of gun owners that take to AR-type rifles...when you read these arguments in the MSM, they are often about how these are becoming more popular as hunting and target firearms.

And as they become more and more popular, efforts to ban them outright meet fiercer resistance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03rifle.html

In the wake of Heller, I suspect efforts to ban outright certain firearms will be lessened (or thwarted), and "more reasonable" infringements (such as mag capacity, licensing and registration, storage laws, owner liability laws, etc.) will be in vogue.

Like so many other issues, Obama just spouts meaningless platitudes. Ex: He is for "hope." Well, who isn't? Is there a despair party out there?

Obama's wishy-washy, hedged statements about supporting the 2nd amendment mean nothing. It's the policy questions that matter.

He has defended the DC handgun ban. That should seal the deal for anyone who is paying attention and cares about gun rights. If a politician defends a total handgun ban, then he is anti-gun. Period.

McCain is hardly my ideal candidate. But he's the new Charlton Heston when compared to Obama or Hillary.

These clowns on the left are all the same. They say whatever they need to during the campaign. Once elected, they may even do nothing for a while (nothing being the best you can hope for). First "tragedy" that occurs will have them calling for "necessary" action to prevent future occurrences of same. Hunting guns are only safe in as much as those ignorant of guns don't know that a rifle for hunting is a sniper's tool that looks good. This is why the AWB focused on cosmetics that play well TV. Rifles with black stocks, etc. just look evil when compared to a beautifully blued bolty with some really nice wood even if the action was literally identical.

They either stand behind the principles of the 2A or they are lying for political gain.

While Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation, they provided grants to organizations calling for lawsuits against manufacturers and for the storage of firearms at "gun clubs". They also increased their funding to the VPC which called for the banning of most hunting rifles and for rifle ammunition to be classified as "armor piercing" during his tenure.

I'm also a non-lover of John McCain, but voting for Ron Paul or even my favorite Fred increases the chances that either Hillary the Heartless Harridan, Wife of Monica's Ex-Boyfriend, or the Obamassiah would wield the presidential pen to sign the national gun registration bill...that would be considerably worse than the hated, sunsetted, Assault Weapons Ban. The main thing we need to do is put some strong Second Amendment conservatives into the Congress and keep the ones we have...and while you're there, Vote for John McCain, just to be safe.

The anti-gunners profess support for hunters because it camouflages (pun intended) their real intentions and because, sadly, it fools a whole bunch of hunters who don't care about the larger gun rights issue as long as their hunting rifles are safe (regardless of whether they actually are safe...we, of course, know that they are not).

Here's a link to a page that lists comments made by the candidates for President in 2008:

http://www.ontheissues.org/News_Second_Amendment.htm

You'll note that McCain's comments are unresevervedly in support of the RKBA. Obama's comments make him the worst of the lot. Clinton's comments put her between Obama and McCain, but closer to Obama than McCain.

Do I think McCain is perfect? No. Do I think he's a Democrat in disguise no? Has he sponsored legislation that I think is harmful? Yes. Most importantly, do I think that McCain is a man of his word? Yes. If Republicans want McCain to win, they need to get behind him now. Moreover, McCain is probably willing to deal in order get the support he needs. We need to get him to agree how he will handle various issues important to conservatives. Once he commits himself, I believe he will hold true to his commitment.

Doug, I feel that you are deluded if you think that McCain will not sign such a bill if it reaches his desk.

The thing is, if gun owners are to be taken seriously as a voting block, then we have to vote for someon other than McCain. Only by vocally throwing away this election will we get any power. Sorry, but over the years we have seen the Republicans move farther and farther away from representing the gun owning populace. They mouth some platitudes and then we are all goaded into voting the lesser of 2 evils. Sorry, but there is no longer a lesser evil. As I have stated elsewhere, whenever you vote the lesser of evisl you still end with an evil.

I go away for one 3 day weekend and everything falls apart. Obama's natural constituency is the helpless ninny vote. And we are governed by the will of millions of helpless ninnys voting in concert. Looks like we have a false flag hero on the horizon.

Gregg, Your bitterness is blinding you...if you want to waste your vote in a symbolic gesture, I can't stop you, but it's as effective as dousing yourself with gasoline and lighting the match to protest the power of the big oil companies. We have a less than perfect candidate...all of them have been, even Ronaldus Magnus and Barry Goldwater. Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of the right, the spoiler who can't win but is more than happy to help us lose, and lose big-time. And that in effect is voting for the most evil...enabling the gun-fearing, wealth-punishing, gender-baiting or race-baiting (take your pick) Democrats to win...
If you're willing to cause America that kind of serious harm, you're not a Patriot in anybody's book.

Doug: The problem is, Greg has a serious point that in the long run will kill us (and perhaps literally, if last century's history is any guide).

McCain turned viciously anti-gun (as part of turning against his party and conservatives in general) after he lost his bid for the 2000 presidential nomination. Ask the residents of Oregon how successful he was....

While I can make a solid "anybody but Hillary!" argument in favor of voting for McCain, he's still the lesser of two or three evils, and he's still thoroughly evil on the RKBA (not to mention minor details like freedom of speech...). If we continue to indefinitely put evil anti-gun people (like, e.g. "I'll sign a new AW ban" GW Bush) into office we will eventually lose everything.

Each election season, we make this short term calculation, and things almost without exception get worse (Reagan was a very limited exception). Greg is saying we've got to look to the long term. While I'm not sure exactly how to do it, I think he's identified a problem we must solve. Or consign ourselves or our children to slavery or worse.

- Harold

"We are not going to take a single rifle or shotgun away from a single American hunter."

Hunters can take these people at their word. They will not take a single gun, they'll take ALL of them!

Reminds me of credit card companies that guarantee they charge no yearly fee. The companies do, however charge monthly fees.

Greg and Harold are correct - The lesser of two or three evils is still evil.

Obviously, the MSM and the two reigning national political parties as well as, it appears, most voters aren't interested in a presidential candidate who tells the truth and consistently abides by his oath of office and supports the constitution.

Doug,
I'm not really bitter. Admittedly, I am not happy with the direction that our government is going, but that is not bitterness.

To set the record straight, whether I vote for Ron Paul, or Mickey Mouse, my voting for someone other than McCain does not mean I am voting for a Democrat. My voting for soemone other than McCain is not a vote lost for McCain since he never earned my vote.

What I, and apparently Harold, am attempting to communicate to you, and those who think like you, is that by doing the same thing over and over you CAN NOT GET a different result. I have heard many people define that as insanity, when the gun control crowd does it.

Look, we are likely to survive McCain, heck we are likely to survive Clinton II the sequel. However, if we do not flex our voting muscles we will lose the soft war.

I do not want to see full fledged tyranny on these shores. I do not want to see what happens when some yahoo marginalizes and then corners the majority of gun owners in this country. I know too much history. Look up appeasement, especially as it pertains to the 1930's.

I would much prefer to suffer 4 years under Clinton if it meant that we could get a true pro gun candidate in 2012 than to suffer under McCain knowing that in 2016 we will just get another social-ist, totalitarian, less pro-gun, if not anti-gun candidate.

We have the numbers, we just have to have the courage to flex our power. It's just like a strike. The workers sacrifice for the short term in order to acheive long term gain.