"Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes", sure it's GOA with its bias but it's also a preview of what lies

[jody]

ahead for BO now that he says 2nd Amendment is find for hunters and sportsman, is against 17 shot semiautomatics, and ignores self-defense.

Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes

The U.S. Senate Debated: Obama Voted:

Supporting concealed carry for citizens 10 Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms 11 Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned 12 Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions 13 Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks 14 Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits 15 Anti-gun


Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency 16 Pro-gun

Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners 17 Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms 18 Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC 19 Anti-gun




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[villager]

1. glad to see his common sense on most of these votes!

:thumbsup:

[Dimensio0]

5. Please justify your assertion.

How, exactly, are his positions "common sense"?

[villager]

6. you're the one attacking his votes -- justify *your* assertions!

n/t

[Dimensio0]

9. I have attacked nothing.

I have only asked for you to explain why you believe that his votes are "common sense".

[hollowdweller]

2. not too worried

The Dems know the best way to lose control of congress again is to pass some gun control. I just don't see any big anti gun legislation passing. Esp since a lot of the new dems are pro gun.

[jody]

3. IMO it can cost BO votes in key states because his anti-gun votes put lie to his new, false image.nt

[Recursion]

4. I'm *hoping* his "individual right" statement...

... represents either a change of heart or at least a politic assessment of which way the wind is blowing.

[jody]

7. Obama’s April 2007 statement suggests he doesn’t understand that RKBA is not about hunting, sports,

or just home defense but primarily self-defense – period!

”I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family. It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."[br /

[bossy22]

12. atleast he recognizes

home defense- for a long time it was only hunters and target shooters- atleast they recognize that guns can be used by civilians to defend themselves

[ac2007]

13. Not worried now, just wait

I think the Dem front runners are fully aware of the damage the gun control issue can do to them ala 1996. I think they've smartened up and decided to provide platitudes of support to 2A rights when asked and keep silent otherwise. Why cause problems for themselves by making an issue out of something that isn't being asked? Yet.

My fear is with a slightly stronger Dem majority in Congress with either Obama or Clinton as President that they will take their victory as some sort of "mandate" for change. Especially in light of recent events. This is tactical maneuvering we're seeing. I'm worried about the big picture post-November.

I am firmly convinced that given an opportunity to enact more gun control with a perceived mandate for change that Congress will try at a Democratic president's urging. Both candidates have poor histories on the issue and I frankly do not trust either one of them not to try. That will give a firm Democratic administration two years to enact such proposals. Especially things like a full AWB. Not the cosmetic one of 1994 but something resembling an actual ban that would destroy a significant part of the firearms industry in this country along the lines of HR.1022. Among other things.

A positive Heller decision may blunt it but bear in mind all Heller will do is set some initial boundaries. I believe the Court will uphold it as an individual right but I think they will leave room for "reasonable regulation" and leave it to future cases to define what those are. Except "reasonable" to someone like Barack Obama will be nothing of the sort. Gun rights may be ultimately victorious in the long-term but the short-term damage could be devastating. It may take a decade or more to undo the damage fully. If ever.

I admit that such an action may be political suicide on the part of the Dems but it might be all too easy for renewed Democratic power in Washington to get carried away and really try to press on with a so-called "mandate". That is what I fear. I don't fear them now; I fear them later.

I DO NOT trust the Democratic Party as a whole on this issue at the National level. State-wise, I'm thrilled with Democratic candidates in places like Virginia. But the DNC at the national level is a different story.

Not to say that I don't think they wouldn't lose in the end. I predict if they manage to push through a major gun control package in 2009-2010 such as licensing, limited bans (AWB), registration, ammo serialization, or anything else extremely intrusive on the status quo that exists today, they will not be holding power come the tail end of 2010. If they succeed in something seen to be as a major limit on 2A rights despite whatever Heller says, most Americans will react in two ways. One will be to stock up. I'll be one of them. My acquisitions leading up to a ban will make my current collection seem paltry. The second will be to vote them out of office with a fury you've never seen. My prediction is if something with teeth like HR.1022 or any form of national licensing/registration (which requires existing law to be repealed) comes to pass, it won't be 10 years or so. It'll be a generation before you see a Democratic president again and probably a very weak Congress/Senate as a result.

I seriously wish the DNC and the national candidates would back off this issue and accept the perception of most Americans. If not, 90 million+ gun owners in America can be a very powerful voting block. Only the AARP is stronger in terms of sheer political lobbying power. The 4 million odd members of the NRA are merely the most vocal and visible gun rights lobbying part. Worry hard about the other 86 million or so evenly split across all political lines. When you start going after Grandpa Walt's M1 Carbine as a deadly "assault weapon", that "inactive" block is going to wake up and all they are going to see is the "D" next the name. Public perception is funny that way. The sad part is, that perception will probably be correct.

In the end, I think they know it and I think they are biding their time. They learned from 1996. I just don't think they've learned enough.

Time will tell.

[jody]

14. If Sen. Kennedy, Feinstein and Schumer all endorse BO, then IMO your scenario becomes very probable.

[bossy22]

15. they are not just assault weapons

but "deadly assault weapons" like there is such a thing as a "non-deadly assault weapon". god i hate those people

[AndyTiedye]

8. The NRA Will be Stumping for the Repiggies as Usual

The voters who take their marching orders from the NRA are lost to us.
The NRA doesn't like Obama and they absolutely despise the Clintons.

No point even trying to appease them, it won't do any good.

[riverwalker]

10. The NRA members in my family

were impressed however, when I told them Obama voted against the confiscation in national emergencies.
Just say "it was your NRA endorsed Republican administraton who took away guns from homeowners after Katrina" and Obama voted against it.

[jody]

11. Good point. n/t