On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama! Friday, June 06, 2008
On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!
The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms. Print PDF version But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT:Barack Obama voted to allowreckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1 FACT:Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2 FACT:Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3 FACT:Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2 FACT:Barack Obamasupports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4 FACT:Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5 FACT:Barack Obamasupportsgun owner licensing and gunregistration.6 FACT:Barack Obamarefused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case. FACT:Barack ObamaopposesRight to Carry laws.7 FACT:Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8 FACT:Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9 FACT:Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10 FACT:Barack Obamavoted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11 FACT:Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12 FACT:Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13 FACT:Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2 FACT:Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14 FACT:Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9 FACT:Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9 FACT:Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9 FACT:Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
I dont mean to offend anyone but I cant believe people are actually voting for this guy. Theres just way too many unanswered questions about him. He has no American Pride he has outwardly said he isnt patriotic about this country. I am very conservative and I believe exactally what our forefathers believed but political party aside IDC if your conservative, liberal, or independent if you dont have respect for the flag or this country get the **** out!!! Let alone become President.
__________________
1997 Ford Mustang GT... More than enough power to smoke any ricer. FORD= Fast On Race Day
1998 Chevy Monte Carlo LS... Still enough power to smoke any ricer.
I'm not saying that i'm not a law-abidding citizen, but if it comes down to people searching my house for self-defense weapons, they may not find them. If they do, they'll probably come again looking for their agent, and then what? take away my crossbow too?
Reminds me of a scene in a SciFi show in which the main characters enter an alternate universe in which weapons are in good supply. Just about everyone has an M16 slung across their shoulder. "Well, at least guns are easy to come by."
__________________
Proud owner of a '65 289 coupe w/ C4. Equipped with Edelbrock Performer intake K&N air filter, and 600 cfm carb, Comp Cams Xtreme Energy valvetrain, Comp Cams XE262H cam, MSD ignition, and ported heads. Suspended by 600# 1" drop front and stock rear springs, KYB shocks, 1" front and 7/8" rear sway bars, and Traction Master style traction bars. Your friendly suspension kid.
I've not yet come across a Chicago Democrat that is anything but anti-gun. Obama seems to be trying to downplay his pedigree, but saying he supports an individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms while at the same time supporting Washington DC's pistol ban calls his reasoning ability into question.
...saying he supports an individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms while at the same time supporting Washington DC's pistol ban calls his reasoning ability into question.
I agree. Of course, don't forget that the 'Constitutional right that can be regulated' is also the official Bush administration stance on the issue, as if I needed yet another reason to call the Bush administration's reasoning ability into question. Seems they are afraid that a Supreme Court ruling that finds the D.C. ban to be unreasonable could also threaten federal gun bans that the supposedly conservative, Republican Bush administration supports (see, for those who didn't realize it, Clinton isn't the only recent President to support certain gun bans.) Of course, to me, this is just further evidence that BushCo are a bunch of neocons - and neocons aren't conservatives any more than the newest crop of 'liberals' are really all that liberal, at all.
In effect, a conservative administration has thrown a lifeline to gun controllers. Following the DOJ blueprint, they can pay lip service to an individual right while simultaneously stripping it of any real meaning. After all, if the D.C. ban can survive judicial scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine a regulation that would not.
I'm assuming that Illinois politics revolve around Chicago the same way New York's revolve around NYC.
This is my single biggest issue with Obama.
__________________
2005 Mustang GT in Torch Red
C&L Cold Air Intake/Diablosport Predator Tune
Tokico D-Spec Shocks & Struts
Steeda Sport Springs/Front and Rear Swaybar/Front Swaybar Brace/LCAs/Adjustable Panhard Bar and Brace
Steeda-branded Borla Stingers
Steeda Underdrive Pullies
1965 "GT" Logo and some other chrome bits
I agree. Of course, don't forget that the 'Constitutional right that can be regulated' is also the official Bush administration stance on the issue, as if I needed yet another reason to call the Bush administration's reasoning ability into question. Seems they are afraid that a Supreme Court ruling that finds the D.C. ban to be unreasonable could also threaten federal gun bans that the supposedly conservative, Republican Bush administration supports (see, for those who didn't realize it, Clinton isn't the only recent President to support certain gun bans.) Of course, to me, this is just further evidence that BushCo are a bunch of neocons - and neocons aren't conservatives any more than the newest crop of 'liberals' are really all that liberal, at all.
In effect, a conservative administration has thrown a lifeline to gun controllers. Following the DOJ blueprint, they can pay lip service to an individual right while simultaneously stripping it of any real meaning. After all, if the D.C. ban can survive judicial scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine a regulation that would not.
True, and lots of folks remember Bush claiming "if a new Assault Weapons Ban hits my desk I'll sign it." But Cheney did sign the Congressional pro-Heller brief, and it was/is the DoJ's job to defend existing federal law, so as disappointing as the Bush Administration has been in so many areas, I give it partial credit on this particular issue. Though most of that credit was earned while Ashcroft was AG, and most of the points deducted when/after Gonzalez took over the job. The AWB did expire, and we should know next week when the Heller decision comes out the effect of this administration's SCOTUS appointees.
Obama, like all in his party, has a traditionalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If you study the Philadelphia Convention and read some of the Federalist papers it becomes quite apparent just how skewed our politicians' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has become. In my opinion, the Democrats are just trying to bring gun laws back in line with the original intentions of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. However, I am not so sure what interpretation would be better for this country. The Republicans have their views, and though they are not entirely consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers, in these modern times loose gun laws may be the better alternative. Who really knows? But what I do know, and what always irks me is when people accuse Democrats of trying to take away their "rights." No one individual is guaranteed any right to carry a weapon by the Constitution. It is the 50 states who are guaranteed the right to arm their citizens how they please and regulate those weapons accordingly. That is how the 2nd Amendment reads, and how it was meant to be interpreted when it was written so many years ago.
__________________
2005 Mustang GT - ROUSH CAI, FRPP Stingers, Silverhorse Blackout Panel, Brushed "Aluminum" Dash Kit, chrome American Racing ROGUE wheels 20x8.5 with 255/35/20 Yokohama S.Drive tires, ROUSH rear springs
No one individual is guaranteed any right to carry a weapon by the Constitution. It is the 50 states who are guaranteed the right to arm their citizens how they please and regulate those weapons accordingly. That is how the 2nd Amendment reads, and how it was meant to be interpreted when it was written so many years ago.
Sorry, but this is completely, totally, unequivocally, 100% false. Madison (who was responsible for writing most of the Constitution), in the Federalist No. 46 - as a way to allay the fears of those who were apprehensive that a standing Federal army might be used to oppress the citizenry - states that there should be no such fear because:
A. Americans (as individuals) can own firearms and that
B. an armed citizenry will always outnumber a standing army.
The 'militia' to which Madison refers - if folks would just read what he said - is the whole of the armed citizenry. Being that, as mentioned before, Madison was also responsible for writing much of the Constitution, I think it is safe to assume that he knew what he meant by the word 'militia' and that his use of the word 'militia' in that instance is the same as was intended for the word 'militia' in the Bill of Rights. Further, the Bill of Rights is a listing of individual rights, not a listing of state or government rights. Therefore, the Constitution does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms and it really irks me when folks try to push a de-facto revision of the Bill of Rights by claiming that the Founders intended the Second Amendment to apply to states when, as evidenced by statements from some of them (such as James Madison) they intended for that Amendment to apply to individuals just as the entirety of the Bill of Rights was intended to guarantee certain other, individual rights.
Part of the problem is that people (probably intentionally) confuse the idea of a militia with the idea of some sort of official force sucy as the National Guard. The two are not the same. Going by Madison's example, the militia would be a sort of spontaneous uprising to defend the rights of individual states from Federal tyranny. There would be officers 'chosen from amongst themselves' to help coordinate with the state governments, etc. but the idea is quite different from a National Guard or any other, formal military body as the militia to which Madison refers is, once again, formed from the whole of the armed citizenry.
The Founders believed in citizens who would be afforded rights to independence, liberty and freedom. There is nothing 'traditionalist' about attempts to wilfully mis-interpret the Constitution in a manner that will limit or take away such rights. To say that the Second Amendment applies only to the government's right to 'arm their citizens how they please and regulate those weapons accordingly' is no different that saying that states have the right to freedom of religion but individuals do not or that states have the right to freedom of speech but individuals do not - and attempts at limiting the Second Amendment to 'states' rights are no less an affront to the intentions of the Founders.
The 2nd Amendment is a states' right, not a peoples' right. The states were given the right to arm their citizens to protect from the fear of a tyrannical central government. You are correct in that almost all of the Constitution was written out of fear for tyranny, but the 2nd Amendment was written as a right to the states, not directly to the people.
__________________
2005 Mustang GT - ROUSH CAI, FRPP Stingers, Silverhorse Blackout Panel, Brushed "Aluminum" Dash Kit, chrome American Racing ROGUE wheels 20x8.5 with 255/35/20 Yokohama S.Drive tires, ROUSH rear springs
The 2nd Amendment is a states' right, not a peoples' right. The states were given the right to arm their citizens to protect from the fear of a tyrannical central government. You are correct in that almost all of the Constitution was written out of fear for tyranny, but the 2nd Amendment was written as a right to the states, not directly to the people.
Could you point to specific bits that would show that the framers had that mindset? Because it seems like the reference to "the people" in the 2nd would be the same context (individual right, not state right) as in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments.
Wasnt and isnt the states right... The main reason behind the 2nd Amendment was as stated in fear of tyranny or the government wrongfully taking over. There would be no point in putting this into the Constitution if it was the states power.
__________________
1997 Ford Mustang GT... More than enough power to smoke any ricer. FORD= Fast On Race Day
1998 Chevy Monte Carlo LS... Still enough power to smoke any ricer.
Obama and gun rights 
Voter Information 
