See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: 'Hunters & Shooters' endorse Obama, group says he supports gun rights
Source:
Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Hunte ... dorses_Obama_says_he_0416.html
Published: Apr 16, 2008
Author: Nick Juliano
Post Date: 2008-04-16 13:59:52 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 867
Comments: 63
The American Hunters & Shooters Association said Obama's views of the 2nd Amendment have been unfairly criticized and its endorsement comes as Obama's opponents are characterizing him as an "elitist" and condescending towards gun-owners. The group sets itself apart from the "more extreme" elements of the pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. Unlike them, AHSA favors some gun-control measures like background checks and required safety courses for concealed weapons permits. (The NRA has accused the group of being a front for the anti-gun lobby.) Ray Schoenke, the hunters association's president, cited Obama's support of an amendment to a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would prevent the government from confiscating citizens' guns during an emergency. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, and 16 other senators voted against the amendment. "She turned her back on America's gun owners," Schoenke said during a conference call organized by the Obama campaign Wednesday. Schoenke said the group reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago, before the recent controversy surrounding his comments about small-town voters. In announcing their support in the midst of the controversy, though, the group hoped to "set the record straight," about Obama's support of an individual's right to gun ownership, he said. "We understand that the gun issue is going to be very important in this election," said Bob Ricker, the group's executive director, citing an ongoing Supreme Court case regarding a handgun ban in Washington, DC. "Up until this time, the candidates haven't really been willing to talk about guns."
Less than a week after coming under fire for saying small-town Pennsylvanians "cling to" gun rights, Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of a pro-gun association that has backed Democratic candidates in the past.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I thought the NRA was a front.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
"She turned her back on America's gun owners," Schoenke said during a conference call organized by the Obama campaign Wednesday. Interesting fact of which I had been unaware. Appears to be consistent with Obama's claim to believe in an individual right to arms under the Second Amendment.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The AHSA is a bunch of sell-out bastards. To hell with them, they don't stand for the Second Amendment. Obama is a gun-grabbing socialist nigger and I don't trust him for one nano-second to protect our Second Amendment rights, his voting record is proof.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
Are you serious? The NRA and GOA "extreme"? Do you agree these groups are extreme, robin?
Do tell us what you really think. Way to win friends and influence people.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When confronted with an enemy of the Constitution, I attack with every tool at my disposal, including calling Hussein Obama a gun-grabbing socialist NIGGER.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=232&issue=011 AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti- gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.) AHSA’s political activities are predictable when you consider its primary goals are to discredit the NRA and advance the interests of anti-gun politicians. AHSA`s first effort was in the 2006 Missouri Senate race. AHSA used direct mail to mislead sportsmen and distort the landmark work NRA was doing to protect millions of acres of wetlands in Missouri. While NRA was working with legislators to protect the 100-year flood plain in Missouri from development and ensure that land would be available to hunters, AHSA produced direct mail falsely claiming the NRA had “sold out hunters” so that they could mislead sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidate Claire McCaskill (See Who Needs Another Alternative To NRA for more information.) Unfortunately, AHSA’s lies were at least partly to blame for McCaskill’s election and the loss of Sen. Jim Talent, a valuable friend of gun owners and sportsmen. While the NRA counts membership in the millions, AHSA can only claim a few hundred members and has done nothing to advance the issues important to sportsmen. On top of that, in its first foray into Second Amendment issues, AHSA chose to stand alongside one of the leading anti-gun politicians in America: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. AHSA supported Bloomberg’s effort to repeal the law that protects confidential law enforcement data from disclosure that threatens the privacy of gun owners and the safety of law enforcement officers—all so that Bloomberg could use the information in reckless lawsuits against the firearms industry (for more information, see: The "Tiahrt Amendment" on Firearms Traces: Protecting Gun Owners` Privacy and Law Enforcement Safety). By standing with Bloomberg, AHSA President Ray Schoenke made his claims that “we are a gun rights organization” impossible to defend. AHSA has also attempted to use the District of Columbia v. Heller case as an opportunity to create false pro-gun credentials, but its effort reveals the group’s real agenda. In its friend of the court brief—ostensibly in support of the challenge to D.C.’s gun ban—AHSA claims to support the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but a complete reading shows a different story. The AHSA brief actually makes the case that the D.C. gun ban is mainly improper because D.C. is not a state, and the gun ban has not been authorized by Congress, saying “as a federal district, D.C. enjoys none of the indicia of statehood absent congressional legislation to the contrary and, therefore, basic notions of federalism cannot logically or semantically apply to the District.” If AHSA’s position were adopted, it would strengthen the ability of states to pass more restrictive gun laws and lessen the impact of a pro-Second Amendment ruling in any of the fifty states. Unsurprisingly, in its conclusion, the brief states: The argument advanced by [AHSA] would in no way prevent the D.C. Council from enacting reasonable regulations relating to possession, safety, and registration of firearms in the District. Indeed, it has a responsibility to the public to do so. [AHSA believes] that the District’s Gun Law was a laudable effort. “Reasonable regulations,” “a responsibility to the public to do so,” a “laudable effort”? No organization that claims the D.C. gun ban is a “laudable effort” or claims the gun regulations supported by the D.C. Council are “reasonable” can be described as pro-Second Amendment by any stretch of the imagination. And the claim that the gun ban’s primary flaw is that is was not enacted by a state eliminates any doubt that AHSA opposes a true individual right to keep and bear arms. If AHSA’s view were adopted, states would largely not be subject to the ruling—and to the extent they were, would not be prevented from enacting a broad range of laws as “reasonable regulations.” In fact, they would say, it would be their “responsibility to the public to do so.” AHSA would be more correctly called the “American Association for the Protection of Anti-Gun Politicians.” No gun owner or sportsman should fall prey to its carefully crafted lies and deceptions.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
If you think that's an effective way to combat Obama's candidacy, I doubt if I can convince you otherwise.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Bump to #4 Are the NRA and GOA "extreme" to you?
unfreakinbelieveable.... Great find.
I can't say I follow gun issues closely enough to have an opinion one way or the other. I don't even know what GOA is. But I'd be interested to know whether the claim this organization makes about Obama's support of (and Hillary's opposition to) that amendment is correct.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Your self admitted ignorance explains your political naivete vis-à-vis Obama and the 2nd. Thank-you.
You responded to the first half of my posting, but you did not respond to the second half.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Bump to #4
Get educated on the first part, then I'll be happy to answer your question.
These folks are shameless.... In the annals of aspiring politicians who run as anti-politicians, Ray Schoenke may stand apart. The erstwhile Democratic gubernatorial candidate decided recently that, because he was no longer running, he no longer deserved the money he had collected for his bid.
Good article, thanks.
Registration is the key ingredient in the anti-gun rights brew marking presidential candidate Hillary Clinton`s core beliefs. And photographing and fingerprinting honest American citizens as a condition of potential gun ownership is the key gun control scheme of Hillary`s rival, U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill. As for gun confiscation? Both leading Democratic candidates, Obama and Hillary, are supporters of firearm bans. For Clinton, that includes the confiscations that took place in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Hillary has pushed vigorously for a harsher version of Bill Clinton`s semi-auto ban, a hallmark of their "co-presidency" and a stark reminder of what 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would have in store for you upon the return of this "political team." For his part, Obama has variously supported bans on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns; the extension of the Clinton gun ban; and most remarkably, in 1998 as a state senator, embraced the call to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." In seeking to capture the White House in November 2008, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are lying in saying they support the Second Amendment. A look back into recent history reveals the truth. As a prominent leader of the George Soros-funded and Rosie O`Donnell-hosted Million Mom March in May 2000, Hillary Clinton made this single demand: "We have to license and register all handguns." But as The New York Times elaborated, it was more than that: "If elected to the Senate, Mrs. Clinton said she`d work with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on her bill that would require prospective gun buyers to first obtain a gun license by passing a background check and a safety course exam. The bill would also establish a national registry to record all gun sales." As for Obama, as the U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear the landmark challenge to the District of Columbia`s total handgun ban, he blithely labeled that draconian law "common sense," and said he believes it is constitutional. D.C. not only bans private ownership of handguns, but also prohibits operable long guns in private homes for self defense. In all the years I have been on the frontlines of this fight, there have been no conversations more sad and more elemental to the future of our freedom than with activists in two English-speaking countries a world apart. Both good men experienced tyranny-the theft of their freedom, their dignity, their honor and their private property-made possible through licensing and registration. My friend in Australia-a licensed gun owner who had first forfeited his registered semi-auto and pump rifles and his self-loading shotguns in 1997- described the gun bans in that country. Holding his most prized possession, a fine Krieghoff Luger, he said: "My father fought in World War II. This is the only remembrance of his service that I have. Now I have to give it to the government for destruction." Asked about resistance, he said angrily, "If your guns are registered, all of this bravado just withers. If your firearm is registered you have a choice, you either have to give it up, or you`re going to jail. Keep your NRA strong. Don`t ever allow the government to register your guns." My friend in England, like his Australian counterpart, was a licensed gun owner; he had given police obligatory information about his guns and was forced to agree to warrantless inspections of his home to check on his gun storage. That was before police took his guns for destruction. He had the same message for Americans: "If they don`t know you have firearms, they can`t come and take them away from you." That truth was emphatically repeated by John Crook, the man who replaced Rebecca Peters as the gun confiscation guru in Australia, after she moved on to her U.N. world gun-ban perch. Crook, who headed "Gun Control Australia," said on a "World Today" broadcast interview, "where there was gun registration, [we] brought in a lot of guns. After all, two-thirds of a million guns is a lot to bring in ... ." Those two-thirds of a million registered long guns were chopped and torched, often in front of their licensed owners. That ban was followed by a massive increase in violent crime, which was followed by another round of gun confiscation and destruction, this time of handguns not approved by government-like my activist friend`s war souvenir Luger. In pressing for the handgun ban, Rebecca Peters confessed that the long gun ban she created was really aimed at sporting guns and collectibles: "The fact that many civilians owned self-loading or semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for the purpose of sport did not make those guns suitable for civilian ownership." Her ban, she said, "took away nearly 700,000 of them to be melted down into soup cans and bus-stop benches ... ." That brings us back to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If either wins the White House, and if gun rights majorities are not returned to the U.S. Senate and House, I guarantee that Peters and her boss, George Soros, will be writing the gun control agenda, beginning with registration and licensing, all with the goal of turning our guns-Americans` guns-into international soup cans and park benches.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
Way to win friends and influence people. Just like Obama talking about "typical white people" and going to a black church which goes by the writings of a mad man like Cones. You can't get anymore racist than that.
God is always good!
Someone like Bush who postures as pro-gun while supporting the shadow government's clandestine plans to detooth the population by removing guns is the sort of people I worry about, not Barack Obama. That would be as foolish as supporting this murderous warmonger who impoverishes, maims, kills, and dislocates people with his policies because he is against stem cell research and abortion. In this day when Chicken Hawks and neocons only give their postured stands and use positions to do worse things to us in other ways, I prefer supporting someone with integrity with whom I know any disagreement I have with them is an honest one, and who will honor the process if their views do not win in the give and take of governance as it works in our system of constitutional checks and balances.
I don't know enough about them, but I do recall someone here saying the NRA was a front. Ray Schoenke, the hunters association's president, cited Obama's support of an amendment to a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would prevent the government from confiscating citizens' guns during an emergency. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, and 16 other senators voted against the amendment. "She turned her back on America's gun owners," Schoenke said during a conference call organized by the Obama campaign Wednesday. This I did not know, did you?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp? secid=1501&status=article&id=292204370724337 Gun Control: Barack Obama says he won't take folks' guns away as long as they're hunters. But when the hunted are his constituents, well, that's different: He opposes concealed carry and the right to self-defense. There's something about an election that brings out the sportsman in a Democratic presidential candidate. Recall John Kerry's sudden fondness for hunting four years ago. And speaking in Idaho earlier this year, Barack Obama told the crowd, "We got a lot of hunters in the state of Illinois, and I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." Except he does. In a 1996 questionnaire, Obama wrote that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." He says now that the survey was filled out by an aide who misrepresented his views. Yet his record since then is consistent with that view. Never mind that Illinois and the other 49 states have a lot of two-legged predators. Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun to defend his home in 2003. Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, in effect making the town a gun-free zone. To correct the situation, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar. Obama voted against the bill. That self-defense bill protecting the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens such as DeMar passed the Illinois state Senate and was enacted into law over the governor's veto (and Obama's opposition). It's no surprise, then, that Sen. Obama has come out in opposition to concealed- carry laws. In anticipation of an April 16 debate in Philadelphia on the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune: "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 65.7% of the U.S. population lives in the 39 right-to-carry states, and there's no indication such laws have turned our neighborhoods into the O.K. Corral. To the contrary, all the stats we've seen show a steep decline in murders and violent crimes after a state adopts a right-to-carry law. Virginia is one of those states, but the only one who had the right to carry last April 16 was Seung-Hui Cho. He shot 32 people to death on a Virginia Tech campus that had declared itself gun-free. One wonders if Cho would have even walked on campus with a gun if he knew his victims would be able to defend themselves. Or how the story would have been different had professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who lost his life barricading a classroom door so his students could escape, had been able to fire back. On the subject of the total ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Nov. 23 Chicago Tribune said Obama believes in the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional. As pointed out by John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, the D.C. murder rate fell three times faster than surrounding Maryland and Virginia in the five years before the 1977 ban, but rose nearly four times faster in the five years afterward. Since 1977, there has been only one year (1985) when the D.C. murder rate was lower than in 1976. Obama's Web site says: "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" (emphasis ours). Not, apparently, for you to protect your wife and children.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
"She turned her back on America's gun owners," Schoenke said during a conference call organized by the Obama campaign Wednesday. 'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Well let me help you robin. There isn't a sole on this forum who'd say the NRA or the GAO is extreme, except for the president of The American Hunters & Shooters Association, who is Democrat politician wannabe.
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance. Novak: Obama's Second- Amendment Dance. A nuanced position. At least if Novak is to be believed, Hillary has never taken Obama's position that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I think they are. At best, they are just another bloated bureaucracy. At worst, traitors. Neither one is good. I was a member. My dues went to pay postage begging me for more money. I told them to get bent. GOA and JPFO are much better and more focused. I never heard of this AHSA before. I see no reason to trust them or Obama.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
I am a former member too. They have angered and disapointed me for the last time, and are more guilty of hurting the cause at times then helping it. If they really want to help the fight to protect the 2nd Amendment they at times pick some strange ways of doing it.
Too bad a lot of ranges require membership. They dug themselves in like blood sucking ticks when they offered ranges insurance. Like a lot of things they do, it was good for them, bad for us. It's hard finding places to shoot now, at least in my area.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance. He doesn't believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms. Obama believes in local "common sense" restrictions on guns (whatever that means). Novak hasn't received an answer on his position regarding the current DC Supreme Court case that is pending, or what he specifically means by local "common sense" restrictions. Nice try.
Like 6 year olds should not own guns? I call that common sense. It might be worth pursuing what Obama thinks is common sense about guns, if you have concerns.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Your 6 y/o example is silly, and we're all (save the Os) trying to figure out what he means since he refuses to make himself clear.
Whoa, back up young lady. Who determines that "6" is too young?? Parents, that's who. I got my first rifle when I was 10, and I felt left behind because a few of my friends got their first rifle before they were 10. It's up to PARENTS to determine when a child is responsible enough to have their very own gun. Some younger, some older, but the GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to interfere with that PARENTAL DECISION. I think ALL children should be instructed in safe firearm handling and given a gun if and when they exhibit the proper level of responsiblity. Is my regional/cultural bias showing ;-)??
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
suppose a "common sense" restriction were applied to the 1st amendment or any other? whose "common sense?" the fact is Obama's position on the 2nd amendment is a bastardization of its meaning and purpose.
Christine, your pal robin is too far gone I fear... Our regional upbringing and family tradition (or lack thereof) of firearms ownership influences us to varying degrees. I can only hope that EVERY person who visits 4um and other websites gains a better understanding of our Second Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms, down to the last child capable of responsibly wielding a firearm. This tradition/heritage makes our nation, along with Switzerland, unique on this planet.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
X, you are preaching to the choir here brother. My neighbor allowed his Liberal fucked up dumb ass ignoramus of a wife to drive all firearms out of their house. What a pussy. Love him to death though. He keeps asking me if I'll 'take care of them' when the SHTF. Which of course I will. His wife though...heheheh
Isn't the legal recourse of pursuing someone for slander or libel a "common sense" restriction to the 1st Amendment? And people are not allowed to shout through bullhorns where ever they like. That's what I would call an example of a common sense restriction to the 1st Amendment. Nixon once described our liberties as the ability to swing our arms as much as we like so long as we don't hit anyone else.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
How is that silly? Aren't there laws like that?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
agree. the same could be said on attitudes regarding multiculturalism/race issues. most everyone forms opinions based on personal experience.
He keeps asking me if I'll 'take care of them' when the SHTF. Make sure you take him to the rifle/pistol range occasionally, maybe the smell of burnt gunpowder will prod him to take his balls back under his own roof.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
Seriously robin, I'm not prone to hate, but I loathe your sorry, pathetic, numb and dumb ass more and more with each passing day...if ONLY because you turned out to be a lying traitor and Constitutional ass wiper.
Comments (42 - 63) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest(The NRA has accused the group of being a front for the anti-gun lobby.)
#2. To: robin (#0)
Ray Schoenke, the hunters association's president, cited Obama's support of an amendment to a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would prevent the government from confiscating citizens' guns during an emergency. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, and 16 other senators voted against the amendment.
#3. To: robin (#0)
#4. To: robin (#0)
The group sets itself apart from the "more extreme" elements of the pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
#5. To: X-15 (#3)
Obama is a gun-grabbing socialist nigger
#6. To: aristeides (#5)
#7. To: robin (#0)
The group sets itself apart from the "more extreme" elements of the pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. Unlike them, AHSA favors some gun-control measures like background checks and required safety courses for concealed weapons permits. (The NRA has accused the group of being a front for the anti-gun lobby.)
#8. To: X-15 (#6)
I attack with every tool at my disposal, including calling Hussein Obama a gun-grabbing socialist NIGGER.
#9. To: aristeides (#5)
#10. To: X-15 (#7)
#11. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
#12. To: aristeides (#11)
I can't say I follow gun issues closely enough to have an opinion one way or the other.
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#12)
But I'd be interested to know whether the claim this organization makes about Obama's support of (and Hillary's opposition to) that amendment is correct.
#14. To: robin (#4)
#15. To: aristeides (#13)
#16. To: X-15 (#3)
The president of this "organization" is a Democrat tool.
Return on a Long Shot: Ray Schoenke Gives Back Campaign Donations
#17. To: robin (#0)
Obama for president 2008
#18. To: aristeides (#11)
#19. To: aristeides (#5)
Do tell us what you really think.
#20. To: Jethro Tull (#12)
"Your self admitted ignorance explains your political naiveté vis-à-vis Obama and the 2nd."
Obama for president 2008
#21. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
#22. To: aristeides (#11)
#23. To: *Obama 2008* (#21)
Ray Schoenke, the hunters association's president, cited Obama's support of an amendment to a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would prevent the government from confiscating citizens' guns during an emergency. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, and 16 other senators voted against the amendment.
#24. To: robin (#21)
I don't know enough about them, but I do recall someone here saying the NRA was a front.
#25. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Obama has not stated his position.
#26. To: robin (#1)
I thought the NRA was a front.
#27. To: PSUSA (#26)
Obama for president 2008
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#27)
#29. To: aristeides (#25)
From the article;
#30. To: Jethro Tull (#29)
In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms.
#31. To: robin (#30)
Like 6 year olds should not own guns? I call that common sense. It might be worth pursuing what Obama thinks is common sense about guns, if you have concerns.
#32. To: robin (#30)
Like 6 year olds should not own guns? I call that common sense.
#33. To: robin (#30)
#34. To: christine (#33)
"Ohhhh, yeahhhhh"
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#35. To: FOH, christine, robin (#34)
#36. To: X-15 (#35)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#37. To: christine (#33)
#38. To: Jethro Tull (#31)
#39. To: X-15 (#35)
Our regional upbringing and family tradition (or lack thereof) of firearms ownership influences us to varying degrees.
#40. To: FOH (#36)
My neighbor allowed his Liberal fucked up dumb ass ignoramus of a wife to drive all firearms out of their house.
#41. To: robin (#37)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
.
.
.