What Can We Expect From A President Obama, Part I?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. If we elect the most far left candidate in history, what exactly can we expect? There has been much conjecture about taxes lately, but let's begin with something more concrete, Second Amendment rights. There is no doubt whatsoever that Obama would support and enthusiastically push the most anti-Second Amendment agenda in history. While his record is murky on many issues, it is crystal clear on guns, despite his efforts to muddy the waters.

    Obama would:

    1. Support handgun bans. He tried to straddle the issue when the DC case went to the Supreme Court, but left a giant loophole by saying he thought the total DC ban was a "reasonable" restriction.

    2. Oppose use of guns for self-defense. He opposed a bill that would protect homeowners from prosecution for violating gun bans if they used their gun to defend their homes against criminals. Even the DC police have informally followed this practive. Obama wanted homeowners prosecuted for defending their families.

    3. Support banning hunting ammo. He supported Ted Kennedy's efforts to get common hunting loads banned as "armor piercing." Most any high powered rifle load will penetrate a "bullet-proof" vest. That's why our troops wear special ceramic vests.

    4. Push ruinous tax increases on guns and ammo. He proposed increasing the 11 percent excise tax by a factor of five. A $500 gun would carry a tax of $330 under his plan.

    5. Ban semi-automatic guns and magazines. He is on record supporting the Clinton ban and supports Joe Biden's long efforts to outlaw common hunting and target rifles and handguns.

    6. Oppose right to carry. Illinois is one of only two states to ban completely the right to carry a concealed gun for law abiding citizens. Obama has repeatedly opposed concealed carry laws.

    7. Ban gun stores. He proposed banning gun stores within five miles of any school or park, a proposal that would effectively shut many stores down, which of course was his aim.

    8. Support abusive anti-gun litigation. Obama and Biden voted against a federal law designed to stop efforts by anti-gun activists to bankrupt gun stores and manufacturers through abusive lawsuits.

    9. Fund the anti-gun lobby. Obama was on the board of a notorious anti-gun foundation which distributed millions of dollars to anti-Second Amendment groups.

    10. Nominate anti-gun judges. Obama and Biden voted against confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito on ideological grounds even though both were superbly qualified.

    For more see http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=e7a4e2d7-1dff-47cd-9d6e-ef10cbb9623b&ID=328
  2. I am pro-gun but also support Obama. I don't believe the Democrats would do any of these things. Gun control is a 100% losing issue for the Democrats and a total gain for the Republicans. There would be no easier way to hand the Republicans a victory in 2010 and 2012.
  3. Obama and his handlers recognize that the public overwhelmingly supports the Second Amendment, and he has attempted to muddy his positions. He challenged an NRA ad laying out his anti-gun history and was largely supported by the factcheck group.

    A closer examination reveals that factcheck naively accepted campaign rhetoric from Obama as factual and ignored his actual record. Factcheck happens to be funded by a group that has been a heavy contributor to the rabidly anti-Second Amendment group Handgun Control.


    Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy

    MORE NEWS9/23/2008 - Impartial? Independent? NO!
    FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation

    FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

    There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source)

    Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.

    FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.

    FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?

    FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.

    As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)

    The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:

    It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

    If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

    Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).

    FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

    Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

    Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."

    The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

    Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

    It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

    Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

    FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

    FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.

    The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

    FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

    What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

    FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

    This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

    And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)

  4. Then you are very naive. They have already done them. Clinton had the so-called assault weapon ban, which banned semi-auto rifles based on their having certain cosmetic features. Biden has been rabidly anti-Second Amendment for his entire career. Obama's positions are a matter of record, despite his attemtps to weasel out of them.


    Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

    "I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms."— Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Feb. 16. 2008 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718635)

    Or is it the man who voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry to continue?

    Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

    "I am a strong believer of the Second Amendment," he said. "Nobody's going to take the guns of law-abiding Virginians away from them." Richmond Time Dispatch, Aug, 22, 2008 (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-08-22-0153.html)

    Or is it the man who has called for the renewal of the failed Clinton gun ban? Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

    Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

    "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,"

    Or is it the man who has said he categorically opposes your right to carry for self-defense?

    Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

    “I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.

    Or is it the man who believes that “what works” in Chicago is a complete ban on handgun ownership?

    Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

    "There is an individual right to bear arms. But it is subject to common sense regulation."—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online, 2/15/08

    Or is it the man who includes as “sensible regulation” prosecuting people who use a handgun in their own home in self-defense?

    Is the real Barack Obama the man about which Gov. Schweitzer of Montana said:

    “He ain't going to take your gun away. He ain't ever going to take your gun away.” Missoulian, August 13, 2008 (www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/08/13/news/local/news03.txt)

    Or is it the man who endorsed a complete ban on handguns?‑ Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

    And there is more. This is the real Barack Obama:

    "I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."

    Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04

    "I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."

    Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04

    "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby."

    The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, 2006

    "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country." (gun ownership and restrictions on guns)

    Politico, 2/11/08

    "I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws."

    BaltimoreSun.com, 2/15/08

    "There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced," he said. "This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRA…That's the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind."

    Baltimore Sun.com Feb. 15, 2008


    Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

    A: I don't think that we can get that done.

    2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
  6. Lucrum


  7. Whaddaya mean? Can't a guy be pro gun and pro hand-outs at the same time?
  8. Don't like handouts? Vote for the $700 billion party then.
  9. Lucrum



    I'm sure he thinks he is, personally I think he's being extremely naive.
  10. Obama can take care of a whole lot of problems just by subjugating the constitution and all the laws to the UN. We will be disarmed at that point among other things.. I'm sure that idea makes spittle run down his chin just thinking about it...
    #10     Oct 28, 2008