Obama Voted Against In-Home Self Defense Bill

By Keith Koffler

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.

The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.

The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate. In opposing the measure, Obama lined up well to the left of the mainstream, as the Illinois Senate included 32 Democrats to 26 Republicans but approved the bill by an overwhelming margin and subsequently overrode a veto by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Obama did not participate in the veto override, which occurred in November 2004, likely after Obama had resigned his state Senate seat in order to prepare for his new role in the U.S. Senate.

The Illinois legislation was passed after a man who shot a burglar in his home was fined $750 by his town for disobeying its handgun ban. The absurdity and injustice of the situation doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on Obama.

Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/

 

Its amusing that the politicians think they can legislate my response to an intruder in my home.

A $750.00 fine and $250.00 to steam the carpets and its like it never happened. Its important to never wound an intruder, better to send him to meet his Maker to avoid litigation.

If somebody breaks into my home when I'm inside they are getting shot. It isn't even an issue.

 

Sort of like the guy who caught this naked intruder trying to choke his dog.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...und-choking-dog-police-say?lite&lite=obinsite

 

Amazing, isn't it? How America has always been "Center-right" politically... yet we have the MOST Liberal/Left president in the history of the country?

Just goes to show the power of the promise (false or not) of "free ice cream".

 

Two thumbs up!

 

There is a misconception that the police are going to protect you. This is not a slam against the police, but their job with regard to violent crime is mostly after the fact. They investigate and hunt down the perp. We need them to do that, and I appreciate their efforts, but that doesn't help a already dead victim. In the 10-20+ minutes it takes for a 911 response it's all on the citizen himself to defend his life. Self defense is the essence of an inalienable right if there ever was one. Any government which is trying to restrict that basic right of self defense is not one which I would choose to defend.

 

It only takes seconds to call 911, waiting on the responders can take the rest of your life.



When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

Then sometimes the cops aren't your friends after dialing 911.

TACOMA, Wash. — KIRO TV’s investigative unit has discovered Tacoma police used force to arrest and handcuff an innocent deaf woman after she called 911 for their help. Instead of an apology, she ended up bloody and in jail for nearly three days without an interpreter before a prosecutor declined to press charges.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crime-law/police-use-taser-deaf-crime-victim/nP9mZ/

 

Yeah there is a lot of that sort of thing going on these days. Personally I think it's time the cops are bound by the same laws they're paid to enforce.

 

I had to tell some of my pro gun pals about this (and other issues) before the 2008 election because they were falling for the lies. The thing is, there is nothing that surprises me about his actions because it was all there in his record before he reached national prominence. We all pay for the uninformed voters. You can do one of three things before elections:

1. You can listen to and place trust in a lying politician, often a narcissistic serial liar.
2. You can utilize the information (propaganda, I should say) of the MSM regarding a politician.
3. You can use the internet and voting records to see if prior deeds match words and promises.

Number 3 has been my preferred method. Not sure how I would determine the honesty of a totally unknown if that should be the case one day.