Obama woos Pennsylvania gun owners

[beevul]

Obama woos Pennsylvania gun owners

HARRISBURG, Pa., April 6 (UPI) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is trying to woo pro-gun voters in Pennsylvania, which is home to a large number of gun owners, observers say.

The Politico reported Sunday that rather than touting gun control legislation he has consistently backed, the Illinois senator instead is highlighting his constitutional law experience.

"Guns are a cultural lens through which they view candidates," Kessler said. "If you are seen as way off on that issue, then you seem way off on everything. If you are seen as OK, if the lens is clearer, then they continue to look at you and size you up on other things."

To gain credence among gun owners, the Obama campaign has sought the help of state Rep. Dan Surra, a Democrat with an "A+" rating from the NRA, to form a coalition of supporters who can campaign for Obama.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/06/obama_woos_pennsylvania_gun_owners/9894/

This seems contrary to the message that rights relating to firearms play no role in elections, thats so often passed off as if it was truth.

Why would Obama waste his time with it at all, unless he stood to gain from doing so?

I say good for him.

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. He needs to reconcile his previous stance on guns with his current one

I mean, I plan on voting for the guy anyway.

I just hope he comes out and says, "Yeah, I was wrong,
and here's why I changed my mind"
instead of dissembling or trying to finesse the issue.

Or, it might be a cynical ploy. Maybe he figures the
voters pissed off by the change in policy won't be
running over en masse to Ralph Nader. And they
certainly won't be voting for McCain.

We'll see.

[Craftsman]

2. He is lying tryinng to get gun votes.

This is not different then the stupid duck hunting photos we will see of both McCain and the dem in the fall.

[iverglas]

27. Do we take it

that you are a Clinton supporter?

Those seem to be the only choices at the moment, and I assume you wouldn't be supporting someone who lies to get votes.

Just curious, y'know.

[derby378]

32. Here, fishy, fishy...

[Larkspur]

3. My hero Gov. Brian Schweizter (D-MT) says

That unlike the Republicans, he not only supports the 2nd Amendment but all the Bill of Rights. Sarcastically, Schweizter says that he can't understand why Repubs only support the 2nd Amendment.

Brian supports gun rights but he also is sane enought to know that hunters don't need assault rifles to hunt deer.

[bossy22]

4. i've never

seen his stance on "assault weapons"

I know many hunters who use military style firearms now- they are easier to carry and more rugged then "traditional" hunting guns. that whole crap about "they will blow a dear to bits" is just silly crap- they fire the same bullet as a hunting gun- it travels at the same speed- with the same muzzle force

Sorry, its just a pet peeve of mine- i can't stand people who stand up there and say "im all for hunters but an assault weapon with blow up a deer"- its a plain lie

[bossy22]

5. in fact

im one who believes assault weapon bans nowadays ban almost all semi-auto rifles- its a backdoor way of doing it also "you can own any semi-auto as long as it isnt an assault weapon" but the definition of an assault weapon is so great that all semi-autos fall into that catagory. Anything that doesnt fall into the catagorical ban is banned by name- for example- the M1 Carbine, the M1 Garand, M1A, Ruger PC9 (i dont know of any crime with this gun)the Beretta CX4 storm, and the mini-14/30.

I think gun owners who support assault weapon bills don't really know what they are about- i think they fall for as benezra puts it "the old bait-and-switch"

[Turbo Teg]

11. I'm not a hunter

and I support assualt weapons. I would not be Ok with a ban that ONLY outlawed military syled firearms, no matter how it was worded.

[DonP]

12. You left out my Marlin Model 60

Which is on the list of "Assault Weapons" here in Cook County and Chicago.

It's semi-auto and the tube magazine holds from 15 to 18 rounds of .22, so that makes it an assault weapon for our visionary County board and city council.

[krispos42]

43. The Marlin Model 60...

A damn fun gun to shoot!

And a cheap way to learn that shooting from the hip is vastly over-rated!

[spin]

26. True definition of assault rifle...

"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots, even though incorrectly classified in the United States as assault rifles by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


Semi-automatic rifles are not really assault rifles. A semi-auto rifle might look like an assault rifle but that doesn't make it one. A sporty car might look like a race car but that doesn't make it one. A semi-auto weapon goes BANG each time you pull the trigger. An assault weapon in the full auto mode goes BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG and continues to do so until you release the trigger or the magazine runs dry.

Watch this video by a police officer to verify what I just said... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

In capable hands a semi-auto rifle can do more damage than an assault rifle in the full auto mode. In combat, full auto fire is used to make the enemy keep their heads down or to spray an area where you suspect the enemy is hiding. Snipers, the most effective shooters, often use bolt action rifles or semi-auto rifles and believe in a "one shot, one kill" philosophy.

More references:

http://mrcompletely.blogspot.com/2006/01/full-auto-vs-semi-auto.html

http://www.truveo.com/Semiauto-vs-Bolt-snipers/id/1984216353



It's hard to ban a rifle if you call it a semi-automatic weapon. It's much easier to ban if you label it an assault weapon.

[Larkspur]

13. From what I've read Schweitzer has said that Howard Dean gets it about guns

When Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, a rural state like Montana, he opposed banning guns entirely. To Howard gun control should be a local and state issue, not a federal mandate, however, he supported the Brady bill and federal assault-weapon ban. Here's Howard's stance on guns from his 2003-4 Prez run http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

[bossy22]

14. sometimes i think

dean said he supported the AWB to not alienate the more liberal dems. I honestly believe that Dean knew better and did the same thing that Richardson did (said he supports it- but voted against it).

The federal AWB i believe is gone for good- it was passed once- had no effect- pissed off people....Especially the new one which is even more strict than the 1994...the 2004 one would have made every state have the same laws as california regarding semi-auto rifles....its gone now...and hopefully forever

one last thing...the silliness of the ban

this gun over here was banned


this gun over here- which fires the same exact bullet, at the same exact rate of fire, at the same speed was perfectly legal


Both these guns fire the same round at the same rate of fire as this standard police issue pistol


"if you shoot anything living with an Uzi it will be obliterated"- yeah my name is General George Washington

[krispos42]

42. Actually, there might be a valid reason to ban semiauto Uzis

Besides the "scary black gun with pistol grip" one.

The Uzi operates on the "open bolt" priciple. In this design, the trigger is really just a latch that catches and hold the bolt back.

When you pull the trigger, the bolt slams forward under spring pressure, strips a cartridge from the magazine, shoves it into the breech, then hits the primer with a firing pin. The force of the explosion drives the bullet forward and the bolt backwards, extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge and resetting the firing pin. If the trigger is held down, the bolt reaches the limit of it's rearward movement and starts forward again. Rinse and repeat until the trigger is released or the magazine is empty.

This design is very simple and reliable and easy to make, and I think with the Uzi (and probably the M3 "Grease Gun" as well) there is the issue that it is really easy to illegally convert to full-auto fire. In fact, the blueprints for the homemade submachine gun in "Expedient Homemade Firearms" operates on exactly this priciple, and it's made out of basic hardware-store parts for the most part.

The Ruger PC-series carbines and Glock pistols (and all other pistols that I know of) operate on the "closed bolt" principle, which has the bolt sealed up against the breech at the start of the shooting and the trigger has to be released to re-engage the firing mechanism each time the gun is fired.

Here's an animated gif of a 1911's firing action


And this animation by STI is pretty damn neat. Try clicking the options on the left to make parts of the gun transparent or semi-transparent.

http://www.m1911.org/loader.swf

[benEzra]

16. Dean dropped the "assault weapon" crap completely in '06.

We won in '06, even in heavily gun owning jurisdictions.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is a loser. It was THE primary issue that created the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme, and dropping it was a big part of some key '06 wins. I don't think Dean understood that in '04, but he seemed to get it in '06.

[pipoman]

6. Really?

"Brian supports gun rights but he also is sane enought to know that hunters don't need assault rifles to hunt deer."

What part of the 2nd leads you (or Schweizter for that matter) to think it has anything at all, what so ever, to do with hunting??

[benEzra]

8. I don't think Schweitzer has ever pushed such a ban. (n/t)

[pipoman]

20. Ok thanks, I tire of the "2nd is for hunting" crowd. N/T

[benEzra]

7. No, Schweitzer has never supported the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, to my knowlege...

which is why he was able to defuse the gun issue. 4 out of 5 U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, and "assault weapons" are Brady-speak for the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America. True assault rifles are already tightly controlled by Federal law; anyone talking about new bans on "assault weapons" is talking exclusively about banning non-automatic CIVILIAN guns.

FWIW, many hunting guns are also "assault weapons" according to the prohibitionists.









"Assault weapons," all, according to the ban-more-guns lobby.

The senate was retaken in '06 by pro-gun-owner, anti-AWB Dems like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, and Jon Tester. The gun issue CAN be defused, but you can't do so if you're pushing to ban the most popular rifles in America.

More at length here, if you're interested:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)



-------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

[Boomer 50]

17. Then is he really pro gun?

If he feels that "hunters don't need assault rifles..." then he doesn't understand what the 2nd Amendment is about.

What our party leaders don't understand, nor do many elected officials is that to 99% of gun owners, there is no middle ground, you either support ALL 2nd Amendment rights or you are anti-gun. If you support any kind of restrictive measure, the gun owners will eat you alive. Case in point, look at what happened to Jerry Kilgore in Virginia. He alienated the gun base and Kaine walked away with the win.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans have really screwed the pooch with gun owners. We have the greatest opportunity to walk in and take the entire base away from them yet, we haven't done it yet.

It doesn't matter what a gun looks like, how it is made, or how it functions. There is no limit in the 2nd Amendment based on the arm itself and we better start acknowledging it. By demonizing semi-automatic firearms, handguns, and machine guns, Democrats have suffered. I for one and sick of it. Our entire platform has suffered needlessly because of it. If we as a party supported the 2nd Amendment entirely and got off the ban guns and ban this and that band wagon, we'd take the White House and Congress from the Republicans for the next century.

Buzz phrases like "reasonable restriction" don't apply to the 2nd Amendment. I fear that SCOTUS is going to take a golden opportunity away from us by ruling that strict scrutiny applies to the 2nd. If they do, we lose a great chance at courting gun owners. They are a powerful force in both votes and contributions. Don't believe me? Go to opensecrets.org and look at the donations going to pro-gun groups vs. anti-gun groups.

Gun control is a dead horse. The sooner we accept it, embrace individual defense and the 2nd Amendment, the sooner we start winning by landslides.

[appal_jack]

47. word-up Boomer!

If memes like you have laid out get some traction within the Democratic Party, we really could win-over tens of thousands of disaffected Americans, whose support could really energize other Democratic causes (universal health care, limits to corporate power, environmental restoration, etc.).

-app

[gorfle]

18. Hunting deer with assault rifles.

The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

The idea behind the second amendment was to decentralize military power in the United States, either eliminating or greatly reducing the need for a federal standing army. The idea was that without military force, a central federal government could not impose a tyranny by force of arms.

The arms spoken of in the second amendment are small arms capable of providing military service and resisting an oppressive military force.

Civilian "assault weapons" fit that bill.

Also note, as BenEzra has documented, that most of the 80 million firearm owners in this country don't hunt.

[SteveM]

19. No, but I don't think anyone hunts with "assault rifles." Semi-autos are another matter...

Currently, the semi-automatic carbine (AK, AR, SKS, etc.) platforms are the most popular center-fire rifle, by sales, in the U.S. Often confused with automatic rifles (assault rifles) and dubbed "assault weapons" by their detractors, they are of medium power and incapable of firing full-auto. Many millions of Americans now own them.

Semi-auto carbines are being chambered for larger rounds than the military-type; to wit, .308, .260 REM, etc., so that they are more suitable for hunting deer, hogs, etc. These may be the hunting rifles of the future due to portability, light recoil and rapid target reacquisition. Incidentally, Remington, Browning, Winchester and others have for generations made standard walnut & blue steel semi-auto rifles for which are FAR more powerful than standard semi-auto carbines. No one has complained about their "need" for deer hunting.

I own a Remington 700 bolt-action in .270 which is much more powerful than regular "assault weapon" calibers. But I am considering getting a semi-auto carbine with the larger rounds for hunting.

[sir pball]

37. I use, and need, an "assault weapon" to hunt deer..

Not a real assault rifle, mind you - those are small-caliber and select-fire, capable of emptying the magazine simply with one trigger pull, mine is a full-power (308 Win) semi-automatic, but definitely one of those Scary Black Pistol-Grip Spray-Fire Cop And Baby Killing Never-Reload BULLET HOSES ZOMG TEH GUNZ R EVIL!!!!!!!



It's about 3.5 feet long, weighs about fifteen pounds (a 24" heavy stainless barrel is one hell of a chunk of steel), and costs about $2600. Somehow I don't think a thug/banger/dealer is going to have much utility for it.

I use it not so I can empty the mag at anything that moves (all FIVE ROUNDS), but rather because it's lethally accurate, far more so than any of my bolt-action "hunting" rifles...last week I put three rounds into a little over a half-inch circle at 100 yards and I'm not even a particularly skilled shooter. I've tried "spray firing from the hip" and at 25 yards I'm lucky if I can put 50% of my rounds into a human-sized target, let alone

Accuracy like that means I can put the bullet a little down and behind from the completely unaware animal's ear (yes, I know that's against "proper" hunting doctrine but I won't take the shot unless I'm damn sure I can make it), which is just about the most humane way to do it - the deer has no idea I'm therem never even hears the gun go off and certainly doesn't feel anything, it just goes completely limp and drops like a puppet with the strings cut. I can't see how anybody would argue that isn't a Good Thing.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

10. BO is a political chameleon, he'll "change" his position to whatever seems appropriate to gain votes

[MercutioATC]

15. NAFTA

[apocalypsehow]

21. I went looking for this thread and see it wound up here. Tough neighborhood.

And I could have sworn I had at least one post in this thread from GD: P. Oh well.

A student of mine stood up today during the Q & A and posited this tidy thesis (we were supposed to be talking about the Samnite Wars, but oh well): he thinks Heller will do for Democratic politicians what Roe did for anti-choice Republican cretins. This is actually something I've considered (and I think posted about), but my thoughts were not as well developed along these lines as his.

The theory goes something like this: for years (he said) many Republicans have catered to their anti-choice constituents by insisting that nothing would delight them more than to outlaw abortion across the board, but the Supreme Court has "tied their hands" with Roe. It's actually been the best of both worlds for them, because on the one hand they never have to stir up a real firestorm with the pro-choice majority by actually forwarding such legislation (except at the margins), while at the same time their idiot "pro-life" voters stay in line because they just know Congressman Neanderthal or Senator Moron wants to "save" the "lives" of fetal tissue.

Assuming the USSC rules incorrectly on Heller, and erroneously stipulates that the 2nd amendment protects an "individual right" as they seem poised to do, my student said this will actually be good for Democrats in the long run. It will effectively remove gun control from the legislative calendar for a generation, and pro-gun control Democrats will honestly be able to plead that Heller has tied their hands. This will bring a bloc of pro-fetish device Democrats back into the fold, and cause not more than a few actual Republicans to stay home at election time because their "one issue" has been taken off the table.

Therefore, the net plus will be to the Democrats, though America's blood-soaked streets due to gun mayhem will take yet another hit. The more I think about it, the more I think he's right. Flame away.

[jody]

22. "USSC rules incorrectly on Heller"favoring "an 'individual right'". Your students really have a

burden to bear.

[apocalypsehow]

23. I'm not a law professor - those statements are simply my informed opinion.

What do you think of my student's take on the significance of Heller?

[jody]

24. I don't know what is the student's statement and what is your own anti-RKBA opinions. SCOTUS will

most likely rule that the 2nd protects the inalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other legal uses.

That means the Democratic Party platform would then be backed up by a SCOTUS decision because our platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

That will present a problem for a handful of prominent Dem senators who want to ban handguns or all guns.

IMO Dem candidates will benefit.

[hansberrym]

30. I am curious about your informed opinion..,

do you subscribe to the discarded "states rights" theory?

Or perhaps the discarded "collective rights" theory as in Silveira?

or do you agree with the individual right but only for active duty members of the state militia theory as laid out by DC ? Note that not even Aymette lends support to that theory, while many other early cases support Heller's position.

[bossy22]

25. Your student

may be right in the sense that it will shut up some of the pro-control dems.

pro-fetish device Democrats- is that supposed to be an insult? it sounds like it but i give the benefit of the doubt

I find whats more interesting why you consider an individual right ruling an "error". I can find information and facts to back up both sides.

[krispos42]

44. Republicans always run on banning abortion

Repub politician will never tell the truth. "Hi folks, it really doesn't matter if you vote for a pro-life candidate or not because until and unless Roe v. Wade is overturned nobody can do more than nibble around the edges of the issue, so you should vote for a Democrat instead. The exact same situtation regarding abortion will continue to exist, but you'll be better off in all other aspects of life".

Instead it's always "we have to do something about killing unborn babies, and I'm the person to do it!"

Every single Republican that's held office since 1973 has been a total and abject failure on the platform of stopping abortions, yet that does not matter. If anything, it just makes them madder. "We have to keep Senator Moron in there so when Roe v. Wade is overturned by God, he'll be right there to start passing laws!!!!!"



Regarding guns, the Democrats seem to have invested heavily in the idea of civilian disarmament in the past 20 years or so. I believe research by BenEzra indicates it was a "third way" DLC plan to look tough on crime without giving traditional "lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" Republicans any ground. My own research into the planks of the DNC platform show that this "assault weapons" issue all of sudden popped up in either 1988 or 1992 (IIRC), where prior to that the biggest concern the Dems had was about making handguns harder for criminals to get. It's somewhere in my Journal if you're curious, and I think I kicked it in the Gungeon a few weeks ago.

Now there is a generation of Democrats that have adopted this position as gospel and are not going to change their minds. HRC is one of them. It was her husband's ban, after all, and she isn't going to just dump that. Look at the way she's sticking to her Iraq war authorization. Attitudes in some parts of the country will change, and with them their elected representatives, but the "bluest" parts of the country will not likely change for the foreseeable future.


I believe that with the Republican party collapsing inwards on itself and Democrats in complete control of the Congress and White House, they will do enough good things to make the economy good and society run better that we will see far more crime reduction far sooner than simply trying to take away hardware.

[slackmaster]

28. Fascinating

[iverglas]

29. reminded me of a song

and only when I looked up the full lyrics did it look even more à propos. ;)



Like black and white
Dream in black in white
You like black and white
Run runaway

Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway

If you're in the swing
Money ain't everything
If you're in the swing
Run runaway

Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway

If you've got it sussed
Don't beat around the bush
If you got it sussed
Run runaway

Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway
Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway

Oh now can't she wait?
No no come on and wait
Oh now can't she wait?
Run runaway
Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway
I like black and white
Dream in black in white
You like black and white
Run runaway

Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway
Sea chameleon lying there in the sun
All things to everyone
Run runaway


Great Big Sea





(edited to fix some lousy grammar in that particular transcription)

[gorfle]

35. What is a Sea Chameleon?

I didn't get it at all.

[iverglas]

38. I dunno!

I always thought the words were "see chameleon"!

"All things to everyone", that would be the thing. ;)

It's a very catchy tune, so I should've hunted up a clip ...


btw, it appears this may be the one thing jody and I have agreed on.

[derby378]

31. If Obama wants to show PA gun owners that he's serious...

...he needs to do two (maybe three) things:

1. Obama must repudiate his previous support for any legislation that would limit law-abiding Americans to one handgun purchase per month.
2. Obama must drop his opposition to concealed handgun laws in PA and elsewhere.
3. Obama would also do well to drop all talk of banning semi-automatic firearms.

[KSinTX]

33. Clinton plain tramples Second Amendment rights

While both Clinton and Obama are virtually parallel on the issue, there is ONE HUGE difference.

Hillary wants to take your guns!!! It wasn't hammered home here in Texas (it would have been BIG!!!) but it's not too late to deliver the message.

Prohibition On Confiscation Of Firearms.
To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law).
October 4, 2006 - Passed and Signed by President, Became Public Law No: 109-295

When the law to PROHIBIT confiscation of guns in "national emergencies" came to a vote, Clinton said "Take Em." Obama voted for gun owners on Second Amendment principles. Casey is a Blue Dog Democrat and a member of the bipartisan Congressional Second Amendment Caucus. Clinton's vote couldn't have endeared her to him.

[jody]

34. Sorry but Hillary Clinton voted for H.R. 5441 that became Public Law No: 109-295, links below.

H.R. 5441 {109th}: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007

Senate final vote on H.R. 5441

Have a nice day. :hi:

[bossy22]

36. in all honesty

the only reason hillary voted for that is because she probably didn't know what it included- it took me awhile to find the part you were referring too

This does not show anything except that hillary doesnt read the bills she votes on- but hey thats no different from anyone else

[jody]

39. I doubt if any senator or rep read H.R. 5441 [109th]: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations

Act, 2007 with amendments.

I was correcting the statement made in #33.

In fact, Hillary did vote against S.Amdt. 4615: To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm... to H.R. 5441.

[TPaine7]

40. Open Letter to Obama

Hi,

Newbie here. First post.

I thought this open letter might be interesting.

It addresses Hillary's vote and asks Obama, who voted correctly, to honestly confront Second Amendment issues.

[TPaine7]

41. Obama Letter ooops

Here's the link to the letter:

obamaonsecond.com

[KSinTX]

45. Oops, ships passing in the night

It's been a while as I've been out of pocket for a bit, but I just saw the responses today. We're not talking about the same vote and that's my bad as I didn't specify. The Amendment I was talking about was the Post-Katrina bill introduced by Vitters after NO law enforcement was caught on tape confiscating citizen's weapons.

Here's the text of Vitter Amdendment No. 4615, which was voted on in the U.S. Senate at 6:13 PM on July 13, 2006, and was passed and signed by President, Became Public Law No: 109-295. Here's the text:

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

The amendment, which was attached to a Homeland Security appropriations package, was approved 84-16. The bill itself was signed into law in October 2006.

Hope that clarifies! :toast:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.