
by: Bill Dupray posted: 2008-02-28 17:49:00
Viewed 804 times. 0 Comments.
Oh Bill, you say, let's not lose our head and exaggerate like some right wing nut.
Obama is a good talker and is fooling a lot of people. He is so good, he puts the "V" back in smooth. So when I hear he is ranked as the most liberal member of the United States Senate, I start thinking there have to be some policy positions on which they base that dubious award.
One of them is his views on the Second Amendment. Obama has a big problem with guns.
The weakness? Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms.In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”
By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.
That is a ban on guns.
Here's Obama on guns and personal responsibility.
In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.
So if the shotgun used to protect my children from felons breaking into my house (Felon Type I) is actually loaded and ready to be used against said felons, but is stolen by other felons who break in while I am not home (this would be Felon Type II - Felon Type I never makes it out of the house), and Felon Type II uses my stolen shotgun to commit a felony against someone else, under the Obama rule, I become a felon. Obama says he's the man for change. Sounds like a change to me.
Oh yeah, and if Felon Type II manages to turn me into a felon by shooting someone with my shotgun, that victim can sue the gun manufacturer for manufacturing the gun in the first place.
On the federal stage, Obama’s brief U.S. Senate career has already seen him vote against a bill (S.397) to protect the firearms industry from those who seek to sue manufacturers, distributors, and importers for the criminal misuse of firearms by criminals, an idea akin to suing car manufacturers for damages caused by drunk drivers.
His website has only one statement on guns, and that has a giant loophole.
Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right 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.
Uh, what about self defense? I think this guy may well be dangerously anti-Second Amendment.
Tags: Illinois, 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Obama,
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/obama-would-ban-private-ownership-of-handguns/trackback
Views: 80 Comments: 0
Views: 270 Comments: 0
Views: 77 Comments: 1
Views: 183 Comments: 0
Views: 156 Comments: 0
Views: 89 Comments: 1
Views: 114 Comments: 8
According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
Views: 83 Comments: 0
Views: 97 Comments: 0
[Democrats] have inserted . . . a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." . . . The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported.
Views: 89 Comments: 1
Comments 0
Have an opinion?