4um: 'Hunters & Shooters' endorse Obama, group says he supports gun rights

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: 863
Comments: 63

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.

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." (1 image)

'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

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?

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.

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.

If you think that's an effective way to combat Obama's candidacy, I doubt if I can convince you otherwise.

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.

Your self admitted ignorance explains your political naivete vis-à-vis Obama and the 2nd.

You responded to the first half of my posting, but you did not respond to the second half.

Return on a Long Shot: Ray Schoenke Gives Back Campaign Donations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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).

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.

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.

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.

------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.

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.

------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

agree. the same could be said on attitudes regarding multiculturalism/race issues. most everyone forms opinions based on personal experience.

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.

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.

I love him too much to tell him what a sorry sack of s**t he's become, however, apparently the trade off (his manhood) is worth it to him.

Oww, you got me there. Yes, my experiences/dilemmas have colored my views of other people. I've actually regressed since high school, even my mother tells me "we didn't raise you to be like that!". Being confronted with savagery on a street will change a persons outlook on such matters :-(

Gee robin, maybe it's me but, but when is too much central government enough for you?

I'm just guessing here, but if a 6-year old walked into a gun store and tossed his piggy bank on the counter and asked to see a gun, I bet the owner would call his mother and send Johnny home empty handed. The owner wouldn't need a law for this.

The bullhorn incident would violate a noise ordinance rather than a speech code, but that said, the evil most see coming down the pike regarding the 1st A are Hate laws, which criminalize words. And worse, these laws are applied unequally to whites as opposed to blacks. It's an example of the double standard of "justice' liberals are unable to concede exists.

New group gunning to be alternative to NRA.

Byline: Lew Freedman

The membership of the National Rifle Association is 4 million and it is rare to hear a hunter or competitive shooter make strong statements against the organization.

That's because the NRA is viewed as the uncompromising, stalwart, shooters' rights defender.

So when Ray Schoenke, former Washington Redskins football player, a life-long gun owner and an avid hunter says, "They don't speak for me," it is an attention-getter.

Schoenke and his partners appeared at a national outdoor writers convention in Lake Charles, La., recently to muster awareness and support for the new American Hunters & Shooters Association, billed as an alternative to the NRA.

The association, said Schoenke, president of the new group, is more middle-of-the-road politically than the NRA.

"We think for most hunters and shooters, that's where they are," he said. "There's a middle ground."

The NRA's position on gun control is best epitomized by former group president Charlton Heston's legendary stance indicating the only way he would give up his gun is if someone pried it from his cold, dead hands.

For the Hunters & Shooters Association, the issues do not have to be black and white.

"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.

Robert Ricker, the Frederick, Md.-based group's executive director, said there are millions of Americans who are neutral, or who don't have informed opinions about gun ownership, hunting and the shooting sports, and they must be reached by an organization that doesn't seem extremist.

"We want to change the impression of hunting and shooting in the minds of the general public," Ricker said. "The heritage, the fathers and sons, gets forgotten. Instead, `It's all bad.' What we have to do is teach all these people in the middle."

Not surprisingly, the NRA is attuned to such challenges from competing gun rights groups, hinting that the Hunters & Shooters Association might be a fifth column on the side of gun-possession foes. Though it sounds far- fetched in this case, the NRA says beware of enemy "antis" in sheep's clothing.

The Hunters & Shooters Association might be "trying to market itself as a hunting group," said NRA director of public affairs Andrew Arulanandam. "I would say they do support the (President) Clinton gun ban which encompasses semi-automatic weapons. We have no gray area in our support for hunting."

The NRA is the 800-pound gorilla. The organization has many friends who trust the NRA to head off threats to gun ownership and count on its lobbying muscle.

"We have a presence in Congress," Arulanandam said. "We have a presence in all 50 states. Politicians at all levels pay attention to us. We are the largest hunting organization in the country."

The Hunters & Shooters Association believes there is room for compromise in areas such as assault weapons. But the NRA has an all-or-nothing outlook and that approach has worked for it.

The NRA is well- funded, established, has a powerful voice and is a well-known brand name that resonates even with people who are not hunters and shooters.

The organization isn't welcoming because it doesn't see a need for assistance, certainly not from a group that might water down the NRA's hard-core message.

"If you are a law-abiding American, we don't think your (gun ownership) rights ought to be restricted," Arulanandam said. "We're interested in getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Go after the criminal. Leave the ownership of firearms to those people who aren't a problem."

The Hunters & Shooters Association has no illusions.

The NRA has millions of members and the new association has hundreds. Schoenke and Ricker are convinced that making believers out of the vast numbers of Americans who have no strong opinion about hunting or shooting sports can benefit activities.

Logic says they are right, that there are always many undecideds. But we live in a time when politics is dominated by sound bites, not well-thought-out views. The modern political world is characterized by absolute positions, not middle ground stands. The NRA is right at home with that.

The Hunters & Shooters Association is banking on a willingness to listen that may overestimate its intended audience.

"Part of our job is to bring back the view that hunting is our heritage," Schoenke said. "We don't want the soccer moms out there to be frightened of us. It takes time and it's hard."

___

Like Walter Williams says, I want whatever the government has to use against me.

Robin, some kids are capable of handling firearms at 6, or younger. I did, and I am not alone. But that does not mean that I had unrestricted access to firearms. Some kids, otoh, aren't ready and have to wait.

"Common sense restrictions" are also buzzwords used by anti-gunners to try and justify new laws, when new laws are not needed. It is incredibly common to see them use these buzz words. It's as if they are somehow trying to apologize for what they are trying to do, to soften the impact, to make it more palatable.

------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------

Uh-huh. It's amazing how interested people are in defining new criminals but have NOTHING to say about illegal alien criminal acts.

As a country, the USA has deeply injured the world and it's a national obligation to right that wrong as much as possible. For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book. -- Pinguinite http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78060&Disp=44#C44

I've never heard of small children being allowed to handle firearms. That doesn't sound like good horse sense to me at all. My grandmother, who was born in Oregon Territory, thought it was just terrible that her grandsons could not walk into their own backyard in San Gabriel and do some target practicing. Well, the backyards in California are not big enough for that, our neighbors live much closer than they did when Daniel Boone was trailblazing.

We are a nation of laws. Some laws are really stupid, others are really bad, but many are very good. Not everyone is endowed with good horse sense, and they could be your neighbors.

Now this sounds like someone with good horse sense trying to pass reasonable legislation. Legislation that really should never have been necessary in the first place.

So, like so many things they do, they create the problem themselves, then they can blow the trumpets and regally announce that they are working on the solution and we are supposed to swoon with gratitude. Not me.

------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------

But note that not everyone is behind removing this unlawful govt control. Hillary likes the law the way it is, along with a dozen others.

I do have a tendency to lump them all together, because imo they are all in it together.

------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------

robin, back to the original article. With all that we learned about The American Hunters & Shooters Association would you agree that it appears to be a hollow vessel for legislators to hide behind?

I'll have to go back and read what it says, but I'll take your word for it. Honestly I've never been much of a "joiner" to any organization beyond church.

Would you agree that Obama shows more interest in personal liberties than Hillary or McCain? Such as here:

Actually, it is. The Supreme Court has held that it is proper to punish, among other things, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Obama, on a personal level, is a winner. He has the entire package afa looks, youth and the ability to connect. My wife was momentarily enamored w/him when he was here at PSU (22,000) kids showed up. She bailed after she learned about his position on abortion. That's her only issue.

I can't think who could be worse than Hillary/McCain, Obama might be better, might not, I'm still learning about him. His gun position is wicked bad.

About that Katrina vote, he voted correctly, but consider this. When the numbers are that lopsided 84 for, 16 against? those 16 antis are what is known as as a "safe" vote. IOW, their vote has no impact on the outcome of the bill and many (most?) times they're used by the politician as red meat to show a segment of his/her constituency. In Obama's case he can point to it a evidence he has a moderate view on the 2nd.

I've said Obama is a gamble. And I think we all know what lies ahead with Hillary & McCain. Just remember, Hillary voted not to allow Americans to keep their firearms in the event of a disaster, while Obama voted for Americans to keep their firearms.