http://gamingtrend.com
April 19, 2014, 03:21:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama and gun rghts  (Read 2827 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« on: April 14, 2008, 11:48:05 AM »

In response to the uproar over his comments about 'clinging' to guns last week, he appeared to try to clarify this weekend.   The problem is that he sidestepped the issue and used a very common tactic of specifically only mentioning guns in the context of hunters.     This is because he's very anti-guns other than single shot hunting firearms.      See quote from his statement:

Quote
“When people suggest I was somehow being elitist and demeaning hunters when I have repeatedly talked about the tradition that people pass on from generation to generation, hunters and sportsmen, and how I have consistently spoken about my respect for the Second Amendment. When people try to suggest that I was demeaning those traditions, then it sounds like there’s some politics being played.

This does not suprise me as his Illinois record reflected a vote against gun rights very nearly 100% of the votes.   He's been on record saying he wants to eliminate semi-automatic firearms.   

Anyway, as a guy that has watched this topic since the mid 80's, I can say that I've seen this tactic used before even by the Brady Institute --   claim you have good intentions by supporting 'hunters', but on the other hand support heavy gun regulation including bannation of most types of firearms.

Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2008, 12:12:56 PM »

The issues that he said people in PA an Ohio "cling" too, guns and religion, are two big reasons why middle and lower class whites vote for Republicans.  I think that statement could hurt him more in the general election than in the primary.  Even though I think he was right.  He said it very wrong.  Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2008, 02:27:35 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on April 14, 2008, 12:12:56 PM

He said it very wrong.  Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Unless you are a Republican.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2008, 06:36:34 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 14, 2008, 02:27:35 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on April 14, 2008, 12:12:56 PM

He said it very wrong.  Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Unless you are a Republican.

Unbreakable meet broad sized paint brush.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1563


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2008, 06:48:35 PM »

Here's what his website has to say on the issue:

Quote from: Barack Obama's website
As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment
creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will
protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the
purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and
commonsense regulation.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2008, 07:35:40 PM »

Quote from: CSL on April 14, 2008, 06:36:34 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 14, 2008, 02:27:35 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on April 14, 2008, 12:12:56 PM

He said it very wrong.  Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Unless you are a Republican.

Unbreakable meet broad sized paint brush.

The difference in reporting between Teflon John, Billary, and Barrack Hussein Osama Obama pretty much show the paint brush isn't mine.

Let's look at, for example, how they spewed out there the so-called "lie" Hillary made about the woman (and her unborn child) who died after being refused health care.  Well, after actually looking into it... Hillary was actually correct for the most part.  And yet it was the false denial which was widely reported in the news.

On the other hand, none of Teflon John's stupid statements (like being in Iraq for 1000 years) get reported, nor his repeated flip-flops, or his shameless pandering (like his newfound love of Falwell and Robertson, despite calling them agents of intollerance just a few years ago).  So why do Falwell and Robertson get to praise the 9/11 hijackers for doing God's work by punishing the US's tolerance of gay people, yet somehow we are supposed to bash Wright for expressing disappointment in the US's civil rights record?

So yeah, continue to deny the double standard.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 07:40:30 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11756



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2008, 07:45:14 PM »

Ive always supported gun ownership. Ive noticed the older I get the more I lean towards a Charlton Heston'ish gun from my cold dead hand approach. Take the guns away and the only people to have them will be the guy shooting you while prow;ing around robbing your house and raping your wife.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2008, 02:35:45 AM »

Quote from: Daehawk on April 14, 2008, 07:45:14 PM

Ive always supported gun ownership. Ive noticed the older I get the more I lean towards a Charlton Heston'ish gun from my cold dead hand approach. Take the guns away and the only people to have them will be the guy shooting you while prow;ing around robbing your house and raping your wife.

That's a great idea. Except none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem. Fancy that.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8913


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2008, 02:57:59 AM »

Quote from: Crux on April 24, 2008, 02:35:45 AM

Quote from: Daehawk on April 14, 2008, 07:45:14 PM

Ive always supported gun ownership. Ive noticed the older I get the more I lean towards a Charlton Heston'ish gun from my cold dead hand approach. Take the guns away and the only people to have them will be the guy shooting you while prow;ing around robbing your house and raping your wife.

That's a great idea. Except none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem. Fancy that.

Agreed.  While I'm for the second amendment (actually, I guess I am more apathetic about it), I think this argument for it is one of the silliest around.

gellar
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2008, 03:59:59 AM »

Quote from: Crux on April 24, 2008, 02:35:45 AM

...none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem. Fancy that.

Orly?

Please define, "strict gun laws," list those countries that implement that definition and provide the statistics by which you arrived at your conclusion, for each of those countries listed.

Thanks.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2008, 04:25:03 AM »

Quote from: VynlSol on April 24, 2008, 03:59:59 AM

Please define, "strict gun laws," list those countries that implement that definition and provide the statistics by which you arrived at your conclusion, for each of those countries listed.

It's inarguable that the United States is a world leader in gun deaths, both in absolute numbers and per capita death rate.

Data for high income (HI) and upper middle income (UMI) countries

Quote
The rate of firearm death in the US (14.24 per 100 000) is eight times the pooled rate for the other HI countries (1.76) and is 1.5 times the pooled rate for the UMI countries (9.69).  Firearm homicide rates are about 19 times higher in the US (7.11) and UMI countries (6.89) than in HI nations (0.38)  In comparison, the US firearm suicide rate (6.30) is five times higher than the rate for HI nations (1.21) and is nearly seven times higher than the rate for UMI nations (0.91)
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2008, 04:29:38 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on April 24, 2008, 04:25:03 AM


It's inarguable that the United States is a world leader in gun deaths, both in absolute numbers and per capita death rate.

Thank you for the commentary and the links, but they don't address my question to Crux.

Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2008, 04:37:58 AM »

The article addresses your demand (there's no actual "question" in your statement, other than, I guess, "Orly?").

If you look at table 1, you'll see - towards the right side - the homicide rates (per 100,000) for the high and upper-middle-income countries.  This includes non-gun homicides.  The US has, by far, the highest homicide rate of any of the HI countries, finally getting trumped by Brazil, Mexico and Estonia among the UMI countries.

Yes, of course there are factors other than gun control laws, including the social safety nets, cultural and religious mores, etc.  The common factor is per capita income.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2008, 04:56:21 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on April 24, 2008, 04:37:58 AM

The article addresses your demand (there's no actual "question" in your statement, other than, I guess, "Orly?").


I thought for a moment that I had misread something in Daehawk's comment, or Crux's, but upon review I find that not to be the case.

They weren't discussing homicide rates, nor was I requesting statistics regarding homicide rates.

I'm sorry, but your assuredly well-meaning constribution still does not address my question to Crux.

Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2008, 05:10:21 AM »

Given that I'm attempting to engage you constructively, wouldn't a little intellectual honesty be fair?

To paraphrase the thread until just prior this little tete-a-tete:

Daehawk:  If you take guns away (by strengthening gun control laws), I am more likely to be shot by a rapist burglar.
Crux:  Countries with strict gun laws don't have [the problem of being shot by rapist burglars].
VynlSol:  Name those countries, describe their strict gun laws, and provide me with statistics on how likely you are to get shot by a rapist burglar.

Would you agree with that paraphrase?  If so, would you agree that, while there are no statistics on how likely an individual is to get shot by a rapist burglar, there are, in fact, statistics on comparative murder rates between equivalently wealthy countries?  And, if that's the case, would you agree that we can distinguish between the relative severity of gun control laws in those countries by using our big brains to recall that the United States is fairly permissive about firearms, while many other countries are not?
Logged
the Nightbreeze
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 465

Done posting.


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2008, 05:55:23 AM »

I have a hard time believing that any legislation on firearms ownership will get passed despite any promises Democrats, Republican, or the Easter Bunny may make to the contrary.  At most there might come new registration and background check statues, which to me and my family's guns is all to the good.  It's only ever broached as a scare distraction to real issues, in my point of view.
Logged

Done posting
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5349


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2008, 06:18:16 AM »

Quote from: Crux on April 24, 2008, 02:35:45 AM

Quote from: Daehawk on April 14, 2008, 07:45:14 PM

Ive always supported gun ownership. Ive noticed the older I get the more I lean towards a Charlton Heston'ish gun from my cold dead hand approach. Take the guns away and the only people to have them will be the guy shooting you while prow;ing around robbing your house and raping your wife.

That's a great idea. Except none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem. Fancy that.

Oh really now?

Also, regarding the US, I present this and this.

It's also a well known fact that Washington DC has one of the worst crime rates in the country, and one of the most strict gun control laws in the country.  Coincidence?  Nope.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2008, 03:48:56 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on April 24, 2008, 05:10:21 AM

Given that I'm attempting to engage you constructively, wouldn't a little intellectual honesty be fair?

Certainly. Daehawk's position is oft-heard from the gun-rights camp: making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to own firearms doesn't reduce a criminal's ability to acquire a firearm thus stricter gun control laws don't help the problem they ostensibly are designed to help. In other words, if the law makes owning a gun illegal, the only people who will have guns are criminals.

Crux claims this reasoning is fallacious. He stated that, "none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem." The, "problem," being guns still in the hands of criminals while the law abiding citizen is forced to disarm via government intervention. Possibly opening the door to gun-toting homicidal rapists to freely exercise their trade, but again, this isn't about homicide rate comparison. It's about the accessibility of guns to criminals.

Using homicide rate comparatives could be construed to be an indicator of gun accessibility, I suppose, but that seems rather ham-fisted and it's not what I was asking for nor is it what Daehawk and Crux were discussing.

I asked Crux to provide the data he used to arrive at his assertion. I also asked him to define, "strict gun laws," since that is the criteria he used to categorize the countries of the world in regards to this topic, and to then provide that list of countries.

Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 20973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2008, 04:01:24 PM »

Gun control is a tight shot grouping. 

I do believe that it should be required that you take a firearms safety course and that you use gun locks if you have kids, but those things should be common sense.   There is no way that I'd surrender my firearms in this country...I've walked around Phoenix at night.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2008, 04:12:42 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on April 24, 2008, 06:18:16 AM

Quote from: Crux on April 24, 2008, 02:35:45 AM

Quote from: Daehawk on April 14, 2008, 07:45:14 PM

Ive always supported gun ownership. Ive noticed the older I get the more I lean towards a Charlton Heston'ish gun from my cold dead hand approach. Take the guns away and the only people to have them will be the guy shooting you while prow;ing around robbing your house and raping your wife.

That's a great idea. Except none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem. Fancy that.

Oh really now?

Also, regarding the US, I present this and this.

It's also a well known fact that Washington DC has one of the worst crime rates in the country, and one of the most strict gun control laws in the country.  Coincidence?  Nope.

Well.. sort of.  I think what gets lost in this discussion is that there is a fundamnetal difference between nations where guns have ALWAYS (at least within a modern generation or two) been tightly controlled and situations like DC where "gun control" is enacted *in response* to what society decides is increasing or untenable gun violence.

In DC ( and related cases) I would postulate that gun control is indeed NOT the answer specifically because guns are already out  there, in massive numbers, and the criminal element is not going to be the group that turns in their guns, whereas law-abiding citizens might (creating teh "only the outlaws will have guns" scenario that pro-gun folks fear).

OTOH, in a nation like Canada or the UK where guns have not traditionally been as ingrained into society, gun control might be much more effective.  At a minimum, this might explain whe we see discrepancies in stats in tightly controlled areas of the US as oppose to tightly controlled foreign nations.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that firearms are and have been Constitutionally protected here, and I'm pretty leery of limiting one of our basic rights (which is not to say that I disagree with reasonable limits of the procedure for procuring a gun - just that I see restricting ownership to be a bad path to head down).
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3768



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2008, 05:23:28 PM »

Quote
He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

This is where I strongly differ from his stance. Guns are not in the second amendment simply for hunters and sportsman for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. It clearly states that there is also an intent to have a well armed militia.

It is a very telling quote that Obama is not in support of the 2nd amendment as it is fully intended.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1563


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2008, 05:49:27 PM »

Quote from: Scraper on April 25, 2008, 05:23:28 PM

Quote
He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

This is where I strongly differ from his stance. Guns are not in the second amendment simply for hunters and sportsman for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. It clearly states that there is also an intent to have a well armed militia.

It is a very telling quote that Obama is not in support of the 2nd amendment as it is fully intended.

You kind of left out the "other law-abiding Americans" in your observation of his stance.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Arnir
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2008, 10:29:01 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on April 25, 2008, 05:49:27 PM

Quote from: Scraper on April 25, 2008, 05:23:28 PM

Quote
He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

This is where I strongly differ from his stance. Guns are not in the second amendment simply for hunters and sportsman for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. It clearly states that there is also an intent to have a well armed militia.

It is a very telling quote that Obama is not in support of the 2nd amendment as it is fully intended.

You kind of left out the "other law-abiding Americans" in your observation of his stance.

The statement still says "for the purpose of hunting and target shooting."   According to that quote, he is saying that he will protect the right to hunt and target shoot for hunters and other law-abiding citizens.
Logged

If the road home crosses any landscape features that include words like "forgotten," "void," "razorthorn," "shadowmist," or "doom," then I vote that we take a nap first.
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2008, 06:46:38 PM »

Quote from: VynlSol on April 24, 2008, 03:59:59 AM

Quote from: Crux on April 24, 2008, 02:35:45 AM

...none of the countries with strict gun laws have this problem. Fancy that.

Orly?

Please define, "strict gun laws," list those countries that implement that definition and provide the statistics by which you arrived at your conclusion, for each of those countries listed.

Thanks.

Take Australia as example #1. And why don't YOU go find the proof that it DOES result in armed robbers having their way with a defenseless population. See I've already had this argument multiple times and I'm sick of dragging up the evidence. It always gets ignored for the dramatic doomsday statements anyway. Needless to say, since they enacted stricter gun-control laws in Australia, deaths and crimes involving guns went down. Believe me or not, I could honestly care less. You've got your agenda and I've got better things to do with my time than to change your mind from where it wants to be anyway.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2008, 09:32:14 PM »

Quote from: Crux
Take Australia as example #1.

Ok. You stated that providing evidence for your claims makes you sick, so I'll help you out:
http://www.ssaasa.org.au/research_index.htm

Quote from: Crux
And why don't YOU go find the proof that it DOES result in armed robbers having their way with a defenseless population. See I've already had this argument multiple times and I'm sick of dragging up the evidence. It always gets ignored for the dramatic doomsday statements anyway. Needless to say, since they enacted stricter gun-control laws in Australia, deaths and crimes involving guns went down. Believe me or not, I could honestly care less. You've got your agenda and I've got better things to do with my time than to change your mind from where it wants to be anyway.

Since you don't care anyway, I won't bother reading past the vitriol and untangling the mixed commentary you've provided.
I was hoping for something different, but anticipated this type of response to my request and sadly you've delivered.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2008, 10:07:01 PM »

Quote from: VynlSol on April 26, 2008, 09:32:14 PM

Ok. You stated that providing evidence for your claims makes you sick, so I'll help you out:
http://www.ssaasa.org.au/research_index.htm

Way to put words in my mouth. I said I was sick of doing it, not that it made me sick. And you know, when I compiled all this stuff a year or two ago, I did it by actually getting my information directly from the buereau of statistics and compiling it myself. Not by relying on cherry-picked information by a gun association. So you'll have to excuse me if I take the actual data over the link you provided.

Quote
Since you don't care anyway, I won't bother reading past the vitriol and untangling the mixed commentary you've provided.
I was hoping for something different, but anticipated this type of response to my request and sadly you've delivered.

This is exactly my point. You know what you're looking for already. But I'm supposed to waste hours of my life putting together comprehensive statistics that you can ignore in favor of the South Australian Shooter's Association?

I mean in all seriousness, why don't you take Daehawk to task for his original post? Where are his facts? Where is his data?

What I'd love to see is a fricking honest discussion on guns, gun laws and society. Instead all I see is a constant fear-mongering by people like Daehawk who are too busy with their Doomsday predictions to take a look around the world at all of the countries where people don't carry guns yet somehow live without fear of criminals with guns running rampant, or their government stealing their rights without an armed citizenship to fight back.

Now I'm not saying this would work here in the US. Honestly I don't think it would. The gun culture is so strong here that trying to take away many types of firearms would probably result in a major clusterfuck. I don't think you'd end up with people cowering in their homes, but I do believe you would see, at least for 10-20 years, raised incidents of professional crimes involving firearms (as opposed to non-professional crimes such as Billy Bob going nuts at the local mall, or John Doe shooting his wife because she had an affair). This has a lot to do with the sheer number of firearms out there. I don't know how you'd realistically get them turned in. Even a lot of normally law-abiding folks would probably keep them if there was a recall.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2008, 10:35:58 PM »

Quote from: Crux on April 26, 2008, 10:07:01 PM

Way to put words in my mouth. I said I was sick of doing it, not that it made me sick.

Oh please.

Quote from: Crux
And you know, when I compiled all this stuff a year or two ago,

Super, so you already have the data gathered, where is it?

Quote from: Crux
I did it by actually getting my information directly from the buereau of statistics and compiling it myself.

That's a commendable effort on your part. Seriously.

Quote from: Crux
Not by relying on cherry-picked information by a gun association. So you'll have to excuse me if I take the actual data over the link you provided.

You're excused. Care to share the, "actual data"? You know, some of us are actually interested in seeing it.

Quote from: Crux
This is exactly my point. You know what you're looking for already.

I said I was hoping for something else. Something other than the same tired bullshit I see on any forum from people who claim to have a compendium of facts, from sources above reproach, that if it was posted would change everything, but claim to be too bruised from forum interaction to find the strength of will to provide said compendium.

It's not about what I'm already looking for. I was hoping for something else, but got what I anticipated.

Quote from: Crux
But I'm supposed to waste hours of my life putting together comprehensive statistics that you can ignore in favor of the South Australian Shooter's Association?

Didn't you just mention that you compiled all of this, "actual data," a couple of years ago? Isn't the heavy lifting already done? I don't know anything about the South Australian Shooter's Association other than when I ran a google search they came up. So did an article from CNN saying basically the same thing as many of the articles at the shooting place. So did several blogs and a couple of porno ads.

Quote from: Crux
I mean in all seriousness, why don't you take Daehawk to task for his original post? Where are his facts? Where is his data?

I would, eventually. I asked you first because Daehawk made an ambigous statement that was clearly informed by what he already stated was his personal feelings on the subject. You, on the other hand, made a clear statement about a finite set of countries that were categorized by a certain set of presumably exacting standards regarding gun control (as defined either by you, by the UN, by whoever) and it was presented as FACTUAL.

I asked for the facts. I'm still asking for them.

Quote from: Crux
What I'd love to see is a fricking honest discussion on guns, gun laws and society.

Me too.


 
Logged
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2008, 11:09:22 AM »

Quote from: Arnir on April 25, 2008, 10:29:01 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on April 25, 2008, 05:49:27 PM

Quote from: Scraper on April 25, 2008, 05:23:28 PM

Quote
He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

This is where I strongly differ from his stance. Guns are not in the second amendment simply for hunters and sportsman for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. It clearly states that there is also an intent to have a well armed militia.

It is a very telling quote that Obama is not in support of the 2nd amendment as it is fully intended.

You kind of left out the "other law-abiding Americans" in your observation of his stance.

The statement still says "for the purpose of hunting and target shooting."   According to that quote, he is saying that he will protect the right to hunt and target shoot for hunters and other law-abiding citizens.

Exactly, which is not a position I'm in favor of, even though I don't own a firearm.

But one thing that still is funny to me. If gun ownership is the #1 reason why you support a candidate, then you have some serious issues.
There is no amendment proposed that I'm aware of, and I highly doubt the issue will be addressed if Obama gets elected. It's a constitutional right - and I hope the courts defend those rights (especially in DC).
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15024


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2008, 12:31:40 PM »

This whole thread is a non-starter. As already stated an anti-gun cleric could get elected into the white house and it would mean nothing for gun rights.  They're not going anywhere.

Didn't SCOTUS just publish a opinion stating that they lean toward the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment as a broad right to bear arms for citizens?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 12:36:00 PM by ATB » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 81 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.026s, 2q)