Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 13 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Obama NRA rating raises questions
Published Thursday, October 2, 2008
Question: Why has Sen. Obama received a National Rifle Association “F” rating in the past?
Answer: Because those ratings were based on actual votes, not campaign rhetoric.
The May issue of the NRA Magazine (Page 9) points out that twice in the Illinois State Legislature he voted against your right to defend yourself and/or your family with a gun in your own home.
Isn’t that a big reason why more than 80 million Americans own at least one gun?
My question is will the Obama campaign sponsor a hunting safari to a battleground state the day before the election?
Answer: May if he’s still behind in the opinion polls. Yes, gun owners still remember Kerry in Ohio in 2004.
Finally, if he’s on our side, why is he on record as opposing the Illinois Right-to-Carry legislation? I’m sure his supporters will think of some excuse.
John Holley - Ironton
John Holley - Ironton
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by Punctilious (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama has been an active opponent of gun rights at least since he joined the board of the Joyce Foundation in 1991 where he voted millions in grants to gun control groups and “researchers.”
In office he’s voted to uphold gun bans and to criminally prosecute people who use firearms in self-defense. He proposed to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, that would shut almost all U.S. gun stores.
Obama does not support gun rights. He does everything he can to infringe on "the right of the People to keep and bear arms."
More articles and videos here
http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a big fan of the 2nd amendment. I own several guns and even hand load my own ammo. I, like Obama, believe the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms.
But; If you think you should be allowed to carry a loaded handgun concealed in downtown Chicago or downtown Minneapolis without a permit to carry or that the sale of firearms shouldn't be regulated, you're freaking nuts. There isn't a peace officer in the nation that would disagree with me on that point. There's a time and a place to carry a loaded firearm. When you're hunting would be one of those times. Carrying a firearm needs to be regulated. Period!!! Unlike me, most people don't even know how to use a firearm.
Posted by CarlinChicago (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We law-abiders would merely like to carry firearm in Chicago, period. Clearly, the current prohibition doesn't stop those folks on the south or west sides. Our murder rate is very high this year, and like DC, Chicago has the most restrictive laws in the nation. So there is NO carry here and like DC, we suffer very high gun crime. Hmm.
MGDBottled ...
Why do you think that carrying without a license is "freaking nuts?" I assume then you do not know that there are many states in which it is perfectly legal to carry a defensive sidearm without a license. If this was so "nuts", wouldn't these states have high murder rates? Know which states do not infringe on the right to carry by requiring licenses? -- Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, and Vermont. Do you still think it is "freaking nuts?" If you do, you reject outright a great amount of experience that demonstrates otherwise.
Posted by CarlinChicago (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MGDBottled:
One more thing. The second amendment does NOT grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.
It merely states that the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.
And THAT is what Obama disagrees with. He's consistently supported infringements on the right to arms. Obama in no way supports the second amendment.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Obama has consistently said that the 2nd Amendment is an "individual right". Your absolute right. Put the emphasis on "PEOPLE". Obama likens the right to, and I've heard him say it before, to that of a property owner subject to zoning ordinances. You can't build a house without a site plan review and permit. That's a pretty good interpretation.
If Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, and Vermont do not wish to enact carrying restrictions, that's their option. If Washington DC, Chicago, Cleveland, or Minneapolis want to enact carrying restrictions, that's their right. Noone can forbid a law abiding citizen from owning a firearm (felons excepted), as was evidenced by the recent Washington DC Supreme Court Case, which I happen to agree with, but States and Cities can restrict carrying firearms. I have no problem with that at all.
Personally, I think allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to carry a concealed firearm in a big city is "freaking nuts". Most common sense folks would agree with such restrictions. Any restriction to a fundamental right such as owning or carrying a firearm, must come with a "compelling reason" to regulate. That burden is met. If someone wants to carry a firearm, they can do so with a permit. A permit should not be denied if that person can show that he/she knows how to use and handle the firearm safely. No reason should be necessary for wanting to carry; but proof of competence to handle one safely and knowing how to use one should be required before any permit is granted. From everything I've read, that's also Obama's position, as I understand it.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PS; The 2nd Amendment is not a partisan issue as the NRA would like the population to believe. I know many democrats, myself included that believe as I do, and I know many republicans that would like to restrict or completely do away with the 2nd Amendment. Why the NRA likes to crap on the democratic party on this issue is beyond me. I guess they want everybody to be able to carry a loaded firearm anywhere anytime. I would say that reasonable restrictions on the use of a deadly weapon are appropriate. You can't drive a car without a license or when you're drunk. You can't carry a concealed weapon where it's restricted without a permit or when you're drunk. Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't the first thing a dictator does when taking over a country is to ensure that the population has no means to protect themselves. The murder rate in all parts of this nation is atrocious. Laws or no laws, the bad guys still obtain a weapon. I know of several states that claim the crime rate went down when the concealed weapon was allowed. As they say "people kill people, guns don't". Question is: What would Wyatt Earp think?????
Posted by sirmatthew (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess what? People are already carrying loaded handguns in downtown Chicago. Despite a total handgun ban in Chicago more than 10,000 of them are confiscated by Chicago police EVERY YEAR! Chicago is one of the most violent places in the country and largely credited for making Illinois one of the top-ranking states for both murder and violence. Chicago cops are less motivated to do their job well under Superintendent Jody Weis for various reasons (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/18/chic...). If there was any place a law-abiding citizen needed to carry a gun for self-defense protection it is in that city.
Guns in Chicago are like a cockroach infestation: People may not see them often but they are everywhere and getting rid of them is quite impossible. Guns in Chicago should be like that credit card which advertises, "Don't leave home without it."
Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are nuclear weapons considered arms? May I carry some around with me? After all, unregulated portable nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. My point is this: There has to be a line draw somewhere, and our founding fathers did not imagine how easy it would be for a nutcase to wipe out a room full of second graders. It wouldn't be so scary if people where packing Kentucky flintlock rifles, but that's simply not the case anymore.
Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ever heard of the Brady Bill? I'm pretty sure the last time I checked that bill was proposed by a Republican and signed into law by a Republican Congress while we had a Republican President.
Posted by PaulKersey (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your prejudice is showing profamily - “white trash gun nut”? “you people”? At best, you must be one of those close minded holier-than-thou constipated liberals - or are you one of those racist ghetto-dwelling members of the minority? Either way, you’re not qualified to engage in this debate.
Posted by PaulKersey (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry profamily - you can't hold me to standards as you have none. My house doesn't have wheels and unlike you - I don't live in section 8 with the other junkies - racist.
Posted by PaulKersey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK - I'm looking in the mirror now and profamily, you have no standards.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)