http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

......

Could you have any better glimpse into the future of your 2nd Amendment rights than this?

Besides the fact that Obama himself favors the re-institution of the "assault-weapon" ban, you do realize that Biden is the author of S. 2237, right? The complete _ and expanded - version of the original ban? (sect. 6201 and sub-title b).

Not only do you need to wake your SELF up about this, you need to do the same for your friends, relatives and neighbors.

Can you imagine the damage that could be done by electing Obama - and him having the power to appoint Federal and Supreme Court judges?

http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=99ac1df3-2e0b-454c-a039-dffd66849533

Quote:

QUOTE:

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

And you have a problem with what's outlined there? None of that infringes on basic gun ownership rights, and it's all eminently sensible.

---

Paul D

Not only that, being that if they both come to office, they are in a position to only nominate, support a bill, or veto it... However, even in a case of a veto a strong senate and house can overturn the veto with enough votes.

No one man can make laws. You want to look at the problem behind this? Look at the entire process instead of simplifying it to two persons.

I might be wrong on this, my government education has been a while back, so if I get anything incorrect, please refresh me. Thank you.

Veto.

Danke sehr :)

A funny thing! We have in this area a woman running for re-election to the U.S. Senate and a woman running for Governor who keep saying in their ads, "I passed a law" to do thus. "I passed a law" to save our military bases. "I passed a law" to do that.

So maybe no one man can pass a law but a woman can?

Have you looked to see what the Tiahrt Amendment says?

Of course not.

Here's a nice response by the author of the Amendment himself: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ks04_tiahrt/2007/MAIGResponse.html

Your second amendment rights do not include using a gun to commit a crime or to murder someone, and then expect to get away with it because the hands of law enforcement are tied in trying to trace the weapon used. The second amendment does not protect your right to own an assault weapon, a howitzer, a bazooka, or an atomic bomb, on the assumption that you need such weapons to protect your home or hunt deer.

There is no problem with gun ownership in this country, the only problem is with allowing the mentally incompetent, criminals, and degenerates to have easy ways to evade or circumvent the laws that protect society from their kind. Need a hand gun? Fine, protect your home or business. Need a rifle?, Fine, Hunt all you want within the law. Need a shotgun? Fine, hunt or shoot trap all you want. Just demonstrate that you are mature enough to be responsible and capable of controlling yourself and your weapon. Do not try and tell me that you need a machine gun to be a sportsman, or a hand grenade to go fishing, because that will only make you an jerk in my eyes.

Obama's position is reasonable and acceptable. Balance is the hallmark of sanity. The only slippery slope worth our concern is the one some nut is sliding down, at the bottom is a cell, or an asylum, and the grave of his innocent victim.

Very well said. I don't understand nuts like Spy1. Unless the second amendment is repealed, no sane, law abiding citizen of this country will ever be denied the right to bear arms.

Pasted from SPY1's link. Does this look like someone that is a supporter of the second amendment?

Quote:

But even he can’t hide from the truth forever … his voting record, political associations, and long standing positions make it clear that, if elected, Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history.

GunBaNObama.com is designed to bring you the truth about Barack Obama’s words – words like these:

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.” (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996
“I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004)
“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby.” Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope (2006).


And GunBaNObama.com will also bring you Obama’s deeds:

Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sports shooting. (United States Senate, vote no. 217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)
Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense. (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)
In his only two votes on confirming Supreme Court nominees, Obama voted against two of the five justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) who later affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Here's the rest of the "Did you Know"'s BTW:

http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=ba32212b-4f2e-4bc6-b19e-55a9b98de651 Pete

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ks04_tiahrt/2007/MAIGResponse.html

"Balanced and reasonable"? lol!

"# “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.” (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996
# “I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004)

Is there anything in those two statements that's beyond your comprehension? Anything "balanced and reasonable"?

Look at his damned RECORD: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=ba32212b-4f2e-4bc6-b19e-55a9b98de651 Pete

You are a whack-job and no one takes you seriously anymore. Why do you keep crawling out from under your rock?

I would have thought someone as highly educated as yourself, could have posted a more thoughtful reply.


In memory of Whipat and Tuff

Quote:

QUOTE:
I would have thought someone as highly educated as yourself, could have posted a more thoughtful reply.


In memory of Whipat and Tuff

What ever gave you the impression that he is highly educated ??:+

Quote:

What ever gave you the impression that he is highly educated ?

Whoa there Bob! He's the professor!

Because assholes like you exist.

Notice how people lose respect for you every time you open your mouth like that?

I love it - it gives me hope for the human race. Pete

Sorry - I should have said "foul-mouthed whack-job..."

Before you say it, I'm well aware that this is nothing to do with me as a foreigner. I understand that Americans have rights to carry guns for self defence, hunting etc, what I don't understand is why they need military style assault weapons. I would genuinely like to know how this is justified.

Noreen - Why does it have to be "justified"?

Is it not perfectly obvious that once you open the door to letting them tell you that you can't have ONE thing that the very next thing that will happen is that they'll tell you that you can't have ANYthing?

As a law-abiding, legal citizen (who has a concealed-carry permit in my state - meaning I've gone through a thorough background check and come up clean, BTW) - on what grounds would you deny me the right to purchase whatever legal weapon I see fit to buy?

Since when has the "you don't NEED that" argument become a justifiable reason to BAN anything?

Here's some more food-for-thought:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/945676/posts

QUOTE:
Since when has the "you don't NEED that" argument become a justifiable reason to BAN anything?
When it's in the public interest that you don't.

So you're saying it's OK for a private individual to own a rocket launcher? A fully-grown lion? Keep an elephant in your apartment?

How about high-powered lasers? (Which idiots in Australia, and no doubt the USA as well) are using to dazzle commercial pilots on approach to landings).

---

Paul D

Quote:

So you're saying it's OK for a private individual to own a rocket launcher? A fully-grown lion? Keep an elephant in your apartment?

How about high-powered lasers? (Which idiots in Australia, and no doubt the USA as well) are using to dazzle commercial pilots on approach to landings

A rocket launcher is covered under the NFA as a destructive device.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm


Lions and elephants are irrelevant to this thread. Thus no comment on them.

And for further reading:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

Quote:

QUOTE:

Lions and elephants are irrelevant to this thread. Thus no comment on them.

It was the original poster who introduced the word "anything" to the thread, thus making anything relevant.

---

Paul D

It's a stretch, but OK. Considering that, permits can be had to keep large animals like that. Lots of hoops, but it can be done. Of course allowing an elephant in an apartment would not be within any guidelines.

Thanks spy1 for explaining your point of view, I must say that I'd never looked at gun control that way before. You won't be surprised to know that I don't agree with it but I'm glad to understand why YOU think as you do. I'm not going to enter yet again into another pointless argument on this subject as you have supplied the answer to my original question.

You're quite welcome, Noreen. Pete

Quote:

QUOTE:
Thanks spy1 for explaining your point of view, I must say that I'd never looked at gun control that way before. You won't be surprised to know that I don't agree with it but I'm glad to understand why YOU think as you do. I'm not going to enter yet again into another pointless argument on this subject as you have supplied the answer to my original question.

I did not expect you to know the answer to the questions I asked you earlier. They were sort of trick questions.

Keep in mind we have government officials that look at guns the same way a few here do. They hate them with a passion and will do anything in their power to get rid of them all. Even lie. These are the ones that given an inch, will take a mile.

Quote:

QUOTE:
Before you say it, I'm well aware that this is nothing to do with me as a foreigner. I understand that Americans have rights to carry guns for self defence, hunting etc, what I don't understand is why they need military style assault weapons. I would genuinely like to know how this is justified.

What specific features on a firearm causes it to be classified as an unjustified firearm? Also, what is a military style assault weapon?

As almost everyone knows, the "assault weapon" moniker was applied to weapons that aren't by the anti-gunners to make the weapons sound more frightening to the average non-gun-owner.

http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/the_new_assault_weapon_ban/

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/asltweps.html

http://apocryph.org/assault_weapons_and_various_other_propaganda (please especially watch the clip of Carolyn McCarthy trying to explain what a "barrel shroud" is and why they should be banned - it's a jaw-dropping example of how incredibly stupid the people are who are trying to push the ban into effect again).

Perhaps the best VIDEO explanation of the difference:

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/ Pete

Speaking of guns, get a load of this baby - http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004440.html

Quote:

"What we're talking about is a true 'leap ahead' in lethality, here. This is a huge step,"

A bit frightening view. What happened to the trend towards non-lethal weaponry? Reading down the article it is clear that there are non-lethal rounds - why push for how wonderful it is to kill?

Quote:

why push for how wonderful it is to kill?

Because this is a nation of killers, hellbent on War & killing...and has been from the very beginning. Wrap it in a flag and call it "patriotic"...it's still killing. At all of our events in the U.S.
we stand and sing the National Anthem about fighting and killing and is
our flag still there...then 4 fighter planes roar across the skies, and
a bunch of guys down on the field start hitting and beating on each other, as if they're trying to kill each other...it's the American way.
And it's still killing.....

Yes Davy, killing and war is uniquely American. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And it's still killing.....

Really???

And here I thought it was a means to prevent killing and to keep from being killed.

I guess it is how you look at it.

Hauxfan!

Evidently, you were never in the position of having to kill someone. You are very fortunate, but your Native American ancestors killed in an attempt to preserve their way of life. They failed in the end and so you speak English. Many Americans have killed, and that is why you don't speak German or Japanese.

I suppose they exist, but I have never known anyone who enjoyed killing people, but many of us have done so to preserve our way of life, in reality it was more to save our own lives at the time, but we probably saved yours too, so in a sense the blood is also on your hands, but we live with the nightmares. Don't be too quick to condemn us.

F'n guns.

This is why I like " F****n guns "...:evilgrin: especially the night shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UtosDFNNP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYXJYQZ3FX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU

It is actually a fun family activity and the bonus is you don't have to worry about anyone trying anything with your wife and kids as they know how to handle themselves :-)

Fortunately I don't live in fear, so I don't worry about my girlfriend and kid.

Isn't it amazing how silent Obama's been on the subject of his directorship of the Joyce Foundation? I wonder why? Perhaps this article explains it:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/ -

" October 6, 2008 - by David T. Hardy

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama's tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama's directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun, grassroots, organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan's objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce's directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama's tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an "outsider" serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today's Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that "sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium." Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he "was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time." Joyce had bought a veto power over the review's content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce's staffers "objected strenuously" to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an "agenda of balance that was inconsistent with the Symposium's purpose." Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the "Second Amendment Research Center" as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board's December 2002 meeting, Obama's last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

"The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts' traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states' right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years."

(45:17-18; online link; slow: http://history.osu.edu/other/MH/Archive/MH2003.pdf ).

The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU's Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate's plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms." But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation's attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices."

Nice try, but you still come off as a Johnny one note nut

Quote:

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

I think maybe ole Sinclair had you in mind.

Not that I expect anything better from you, since you can't dispute the facts involved.

Did you have any intelligent comments to make pertaining to the article in question - or is that all you've got? Pete

As I have stated previously in this political season. "Sometimes it is adequate to know the messenger"

Ethan

Quote:

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Quote:

I think maybe ole Sinclair had you in mind.

You Betcha Shelly, you got his number.

Ethan

Such intelligent responses - indeed, veritable mental midgets giants seem to abound here.

Thank you for helping to answer my question as to whether there were any intelligent responses to be had here.

You make it very obvious that - from you two - there aren't. Pete

Where "intelligent" actually means "in accordance with my views".

---

Paul D

The posters could have said something to dispute Pete's post, rather than tell Pete he is all wet.

Quote:

QUOTE:
Such intelligent responses - indeed, veritable mental midgets giants seem to abound here.

Thank you for helping to answer my question as to whether there were any intelligent responses to be had here.

You make it very obvious that - from you two - there aren't. Pete

You must remember the faithful few of Shellys flock.

Here are a few more for you.

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

Interesting!

Obama's entry is over 22 screens on my monitor, predominantly double column.

McCain's entry - 7 screens, nearly all single column.

Go figure!

---

Paul D

He's a better sheep hearder than you..:lol:

Could there be any more telling endorsement of a candidates true positions on gun control than this?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1040

This group is absolutely slobbering over the thought of an Obama//Biden win - after all, it's the most rabidly, overtly AND covertly ANTI-gun platform in American history.

You'd best cast your vote with that in mind. Pete

Just over the past few weeks Obama has been represented in this forum as an anti-American, black-separatist, terrorist-empathizing, crypto-communist who is also an elitist snob, a hypocrite and a congenital liar determined to make his first order of business as your president the repeal of the second amendment to your constitution.

What kind of change will that be? Hell, he's almost as bad as the other guy.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to mention anti-Semite.

Quote:

Just over the past few weeks Obama has been represented in this forum as an anti-American, black-separatist, terrorist-empathizing, crypto-communist who is also an elitist snob, a hypocrite and a congenital liar determined to make his first order of business as your president the repeal of the second amendment to your constitution.

What kind of change will that be? Hell, he's almost as bad as the other guy.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to mention anti-Semite.

You forgot to mention that you called him a 'nigger' in one of your rants: "He is a nigger, for Christ's sake!"

http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=155727&mesg_id=155858&page=

I hadn't forgotten. In future, before I commit myself to such obvious irony, I must remind myself that there are some here who are much too obtuse to grasp the concept.

Hope you're watching what kind of a Cabinet the man is appointing:

Holder for Attorney General:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/holder_gun_control/2008/11/21/153808.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1227228105.shtml

Hillary for Sec. of State:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=272

Grijalva for Sec. of the Interior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Grijalva#Gun_control ( Gun control

He voted no on prohibiting suing gun-makers and sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) He received an F rating from the National Rifle Association on gun issues.<8>

He is a cosponsor of the current Assault Weapon Ban, HR 1022.<9> )

Rest assured - shortly after his crowning, Obama will have us fighting so many 2nd Amendment battles that we'll be struggling to keep up with them all. Pete

Sounds horrible. When are you moving to another country?

Somalia would be the logical choice. Plenty of guns there and not a restriction in sight.

Quote:

QUOTE:

Rest assured - shortly after his crowning, Obama will have us fighting so many 2nd Amendment battles that we'll be struggling to keep up with them all. Pete

The sad part is the only ones who benefit are the lawyers who present the cases in court.

They can pass all the laws they want but it will not keep people from owning firearms.

They can't make you register them, they can't make you turn them in to be destroyed, and they can't march into your home and take them from you (unless you do something illegal).

Anyone who lets that happen is a fool. I still can't believe that happend in the land down under and the people let it happen without a fight. If you believe in something you should be ready to defend it.

The second amendment will never be repealed.

You're right, Americans will not let it happen :-)