Shifting Positions Leave Questions Unanswered On Guns...

Shifting Positions Leave Questions Unanswered On Guns...

This is a discussion on Shifting Positions Leave Questions Unanswered On Guns... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As the majority of this article directly relates to Obama's positions on guns.... Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news I really ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263

    Shifting Positions Leave Questions Unanswered On Guns...

    As the majority of this article directly relates to Obama's positions on guns....

    Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

    I really just wanted to post this as a point of information and not looking to get into a huge bash fest one way or the other. No doubt too much will just get this thread
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Sorry, I haven't got the hang of how to quote an article in the thread. Starts like:

    Obama's Shifting Positions Leave Questions Unanswered On Guns...
    BY JOHN R. LOTT JR.


    Posted 7/24/2008

    Sen. Barack Obama claims there has been only a "shift in emphasis," not "wild shifts," in his political positions. Many already know the list: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, NAFTA, public financing of campaigns, abortion, gay marriage, Social Security taxes, the death penalty and negotiating with rogue nations.

    Possibly one of the more remarkable changes has been his position on guns.

    ......article goes on from there.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Here is the rest of the article. Nothing really new, but its written fairly well.

    BY JOHN R. LOTT JR.


    Posted 7/24/2008

    Sen. Barack Obama claims there has been only a "shift in emphasis," not "wild shifts," in his political positions. Many already know the list: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, NAFTA, public financing of campaigns, abortion, gay marriage, Social Security taxes, the death penalty and negotiating with rogue nations.

    Possibly one of the more remarkable changes has been his position on guns.

    But despite Obama's recent concession on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" that there has been a "shift in emphasis" on various issues, on guns he held firm: "You mentioned the gun position. I've been talking about the Second Amendment being an individual right for the last year and a half. So there wasn't a shift there."

    Unfortunately, the interviewer, Gwen Ifill, didn't challenge his claim.

    The day the Supreme Court struck Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, Obama claimed the court's decision merely confirmed his own view. He told Fox News he had "said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on."

    So has Obama consistently supported individuals' rights to own guns and opposed the D.C. handgun ban?

    Last November, Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." After Obama's statement supporting the Supreme Court striking down the ban, the campaign quickly disowned the Chicago Tribune quote as a staffer's "inartful attempt" to characterize his position.

    Unfortunately, however, Obama personally voiced support for the D.C. ban at other times. In February, he did this himself, not something that he could blame on a staffer.

    ABC's local Washington, D.C., anchor Leon Harris asked Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently . . . 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama's simple response: "Right." When Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Obama is clearly seen on tape nodding his head yes.

    But this is not new. Obama has a long history of supporting city gun bans. As the Associated Press described his 2004 vote on a gun control bill:

    "He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."

    Obama's statement on "NewsHour" added a new qualifier that he has been making the individual right position "for the last year and a half." Previous statements have simply said that he has had "consistently" held that position on guns. But all the changes are causing confusion among Obama's own advisers.

    One adviser, Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig, said last week on Hugh Hewitt's national radio show that "Barack Obama is not a lefty. . . . I think that he has always been an individual rights person on the Second Amendment."

    No matter Obama's current position, no major party presidential nominee has probably ever had as strong and consistent an anti-gun record. Here is a politician who supported a ban on handguns in 1996, backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns in 1998 (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.), advocated in 2004 banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on virtually all gun stores), as well as served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban research in the country.

    Difficult questions still remain. With new legal cases being filed against Chicago's gun ban over the last couple of weeks, somebody in the media is going to eventually have to ask Obama why he has not only never spoken out against Chicago's ban, he actively supported it.

    Or, what do his positions mean for Supreme Court nominees? How will Obama reconcile his new position with the fact that all the members of the Supreme Court whom he reveres and whom his appointees would be like voted that the Second Amendment is not an individual right? These justices went even further and argued that even if the Amendment guaranteed such a right, D.C.'s ban does not infringe people's rights to own guns.

    Obama obviously thinks the gun issue is important. Why else is it one issue on which he won't admit shifting emphasis? But would anyone believe a promise by him that his judicial nominees wouldn't vote to reverse the court's close 5-to-4 decision on the Second Amendment?
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,368
    But despite Obama's recent concession on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" that there has been a "shift in emphasis" on various issues, on guns he held firm: "You mentioned the gun position. I've been talking about the Second Amendment being an individual right for the last year and a half. So there wasn't a shift there."
    Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t he vote FOR every anti-self defensive proposal before the state legislature, as the old saying goes “A tiger cannot change it’s stripes”.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array semperfi.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Over here now!
    Posts
    3,616
    This is from the Grand Lodge FOP site. They asked both candidates this question;

    Because of the increased politicization of firearms issues and the lack of any meaningful public
    safety component in many legislative proposals, the membership of the FOP adopted a resolution
    stating that it would not support additional “gun control” legislation beyond our support for the
    measures signed into law in 1994. Will your Administration seek to push any additional “gun
    control” measures? If so, what public safety benefit do you expect to achieve and why should the
    FOP overturn its resolution on this issue?

    This is Sen. Obama's response;

    I greatly respect the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. But I also believe that we can
    respect the Second Amendment and stem gun violence in our communities. It is especially
    important to stop the trafficking of illegal guns, and my legislative priorities will focus on the
    common‐sense steps we can take to do just that.
    First, we know that when law enforcement agencies operate in concert at the federal, state, and
    local levels, the chances of solving a crime increases. But since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment has
    restricted the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to share gun
    trace information with members of state and local law enforcement. The ATF has a wide‐ranging
    database of gun information, yet Washington has threatened police officers with time in prison for
    attempting to access it. If we repeal this Amendment, it will give police officers the tools they need
    to fight the illegal gun trade and reduce crime.
    Second, I support requiring background checks and closing the gun‐show loophole that has been
    exploited by everyone from foreign terrorists to the Columbine High School shooters. Closing it
    would not impair the rights of lawful gun owners.

    Finally, I believe we should reinstate and make permanent the expired federal assault weapons ban.
    We’ve witnessed the need for the ban in my hometown of Chicago, where Mayor Daley and the
    Chicago Police Department are backing a plan to equip officers with semi‐automatic assault rifles in
    part because our officers have been outgunned by criminals equipped with AK‐47s and similar
    weapons.
    Last edited by semperfi.45; July 26th, 2008 at 01:36 PM.
    Training means learning the rules. Experience means learning the exceptions.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    If we get past all the political 'spinning' of this issue, Obama WILL do EVERYTHING to restrict ALL gun rights. It's just who he is.....It helped his advancement in Il. state and Senate politics. Simply not enough people who care about thier 2nd Ammendment rights voted..........that or there there was too many of "them" (like-minded Brady Bunch larvie) to oppose his position locally. On the National stage, however, that COULD change. There are enough of us "bitter Americans clinging to our guns and Bibles" to prevent his winning the POTUS.
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    I hope you're right goldshellback! My confidence however is low, as it seems that we are at the zenith of mass stupidity as far as the electorate is concerned.

    AFA Barack Hussein O'bama, he's always been and anti and always will be. I ain't sure the other guy is much better, but he can't be any worse.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    You all are missing the point when it comes to the 2nd Admendment and Obama...Obama can't restrict the 2nd Admendment...but the 2-3 Supreme Court Justices' the next President will pick can.

    Rick

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array Shizzlemah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    723
    If we repeal this Amendment, it will give police officers the tools they need
    to fight the illegal gun trade and reduce crime.


    Well that's sayin' a little bit right there, 'eh ?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array rdoggsilva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    591
    This guy can do a back flip better then any one I have seen.
    John Steinbeck: Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,014
    Shifting Positions Leave Questions Unanswered On Guns...
    The simple inability of folks to come right out and say what they mean leaves all questions unanswered. If only.

    The poor sod Obama believes the right of people's sensitivity meters trump the right to life, liberty. He is sorely mistaken, as are others who think like him on these rights.

    He has done nothing to indicate otherwise. He has fumbled a few statements, when cornered. He has tried to appear reasonable and rational in cases where he had no other choice on the relevant issues.

    Ditto on the sentiments: he'll push hard to take everything we've got, in terms of ability to effectively withstand criminals and crime. "JUST SAY NO" simply isn't going to cut it, this time around.

    The lunacy of it all is: there are no guarantees with the Nine, McCain or well over half the fools sitting in the Senate and House, either. Many (most?) of them won't take a solid position on this question, either, largely.

    Many in these groups are woefully mistaken over the right to life and liberty, and the right to bear arms in defense of those things. They believe these things are negotiable in trade for some small measure of reduction of perceived threat via active, forcible disarmament of citizens. They are wrong.

    Obama's waffling positions, or lack of willingness to take a solid position, is merely the most visible at this time. The mistaken dream that disarmament of citizens equates to reduced crime is a foolish hope and a cancer, and it has spread to all corners. Obama is merely the most visible public embodiment of this lunacy, right now. But there are millions of this sort who would if they could.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    Hussein as an American president????? need I say more!!! What is wrong with people?

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,292
    It's not just the second amendment issue with Obama or any other politician for that matter. The question is, when you're presented with a politician up for a vote, can you really trust the one that flip flops his position just to get more votes or to keep "popular" opinion?

    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by rdoggsilva View Post
    This guy can do a back flip better then any one I have seen.
    Mainly because the national press is so enamored of him that they don't hold his feet to the fire, neither on Second Amendment issues nor any others. They are desperate for this man to win.

    OMO, YMMV.

    I believe that John McCain is no great friend of the Second Amendment or of those who cherish it. I do not think, however, that his advisers and supporters will be tugging at his sleeve every five minutes asking him to enact more gun-control schemes. Barack Obama's advisers will.

    As for Supreme Court nominees, no president ever gets what he (or she, when a woman is elected president) expects when advancing a nominee. President Eisenhower probably was not thrilled with Earl Warren, for example. John McCain will not, at least, actively seek nominees who are openly hostile to the right of self-defense. Barack Obama will...and with our luck, he won't be disappointed in them.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by falcon1 View Post
    As for Supreme Court nominees, no president ever gets what he (or she, when a woman is elected president) expects when advancing a nominee. President Eisenhower probably was not thrilled with Earl Warren, for example. John McCain will not, at least, actively seek nominees who are openly hostile to the right of self-defense. Barack Obama will...and with our luck, he won't be disappointed in them.
    In part I would agree with you...except this is a Democrat congress which makes it much easier for a Democrat Prez to push his/her nominee.

    Rick

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 2 questions about Marlin lever guns....
    By Gideon in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 01:20 AM
  2. Shifting OWB Holster - Fix?
    By Uechi in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 27th, 2009, 10:22 AM
  3. Would you leave your guns in the car?
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 05:00 PM
  4. Miami Herald: Leave guns, assault weapons at home
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 04:33 PM
  5. Adjusting, shifting and checking way too much.
    By BIG E in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 28th, 2006, 07:31 PM

Search tags for this page

the middle is always evil how to quote
,

unanswered issues on crime gun and right

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors