PDA

View Full Version : Bewildered - Part 2


MolonLabe2008
07-14-2008, 12:27 PM
For some unknown reason my first post, on this topic, got yanked.

For the faint of heart and easily offended, I present to you the politically correct and sanitized version...

* * * * * *

I find it a tad bit confusing that some on this board (a gun board) actually endorse Obama. Looking at Obama's voting record and past comments, it is blatantly evident that he fervently opposes the individual right to keep and bear arms.

And for those of you who say that the gun issue is not the only reason some are endorsing Obama, just makes it even more bewildering since Obama is a socialist.

Following is some of Barack Obama's views on gun ownership...

* Endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (April 2008)

* Supports gun licensing. (January 2008)

* Cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (October 2007)

* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (July 2005)

* Supports ban on semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

* Opposed the nomination of Supreme Court justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289373,00.html

"We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family. We're limiting handgun sales to one a month. We're calling for handgun registration."
--- Barack Obama - Chicago Defender, 2/20/2001

"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents"
--- Barack Obama, Chicago Tribune, 2/20/2004

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
--- Barack Obama - Pittsburg Tribune-Review, 4/2/2008.

383green
07-14-2008, 1:26 PM
Hmm, I wonder why the other topic went away? While I like your new version a lot better, I wasn't aware of anything in the old version that warranted a topic deletion. I hope a mod can briefly comment here so any of us who might have said anything bad (including me?) can learn what not to say in the future.

GenLee
07-14-2008, 1:37 PM
Still "Bewildered" here as well...:beatdeadhorse5:

383green
07-14-2008, 1:40 PM
I don't like McCain. At all. However, I suspect that Obama would try to have a much worst impact on our Second Amendment rights than McCain would. That being said, does it really matter who we vote for in CA? Is there any measurable chance that CA's electoral votes will go to anybody other than Obama?

spencerhut
07-14-2008, 1:47 PM
Is there any measurable chance that CA's electoral votes will go to anybody other than Obama?

No.

And since when is a simple "no" too short of a message to even post. Now I have to rant on about "no" being too short to post and . . . .

ViPER395
07-14-2008, 1:51 PM
That being said, does it really matter who we vote for in CA? Is there any measurable chance that CA's electoral votes will go to anybody other than Obama?

I must remain optimistic. I think this year will is the best chance in my voting career to send CA electoral votes to the GOP.

Kestryll
07-14-2008, 2:12 PM
As for the previous version of this thread, the repeated reference and STRESSING of Obama's middle name is just as childish an ill-tolerated as any other snide comment is. Yes, we all know it is Hussein is his middle name. With as much to differ with him on just on experience, ideology, politics and more if his middle name is all that bothers you more study is in order.

Note that this thread, noticeably lacking the unnecessary excessive references to Obama's middle name, was not deleted.

Rivers
07-14-2008, 3:02 PM
OK, where 2A is concerned, "I don't like McCain" and "I don't like Obama" might suggest indifference at the polls. Maybe they just don't ring your bell in their 2A-specific goals. But consider that there is the strong likelihood that there will be two SCOTUS justices retiring during the next term. That means either McCain or Obama will nominate the next justices. THINK ABOUT THAT! Do you REALLY want justices nominated by the most liberal senator in Congress? Or do you think that a moderate Republican might choose justices who are not ultra-liberal? I'd rather take a chance on moderation than pick a sure thing extreme liberal.

383green
07-14-2008, 3:16 PM
Yes, the SCOTUS nominations are what I had in mind when I commented that Obama would probably try to do more harm than McCain would.

So, I think that I will vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils if I believe that he has any chance at all of winning the CA electoral votes. But whoever wins, I think our next president will be a bad one (which won't really distinguish him from the previous several, IMHO).

dfletcher
07-14-2008, 4:54 PM
Perhaps I'm wrong, but unlike Kerry I can not imagine gun owners not being aware that Obama is strongly antigun. We're fortunate, I think, to have had the Heller case emphasize that position. So the only conclusion I can reach is that gun owners who would vote for him either hold their 2nd Amendment rights as secondary to other positions Obama may hold or, they believe Obama will not succeed in passing restrictive gun laws; or some combination of the two.

I understand the 1st position. If I felt strongly about health care, or had a family member who was ill perhaps I would write off the 2nd Amendment concern for the opportunity to have "free" health care. Or if I were struggling to make ends meet and believed Obama would lower my taxes or create economic opportunity, perhaps I'd take the chance. As much as I want every gun owner to not vote for Obama and to vote for McCain, I suppose being single, not a health or money care in the world makes it easy for me to be rather single minded. I happen to disagree with Obama on health care and taxes, so for me it's appallingly easy to make that choice. I suppose others may not be so fortunate and while I'd like McCain to have their vote, it's understandable they may have to do otherwise.

I think those who believe he won't be able to enact restrictive gun laws or policies are quite mistaken. He'll appoint antigun bureaucrats and SCOTUS justices and sign executive orders galore - my $30.00 C & R license could go "bye, bye" I suppose. He'd probably have a Democrat Congress, conventional wisdom aside who knows what they'd do.

One benefit I suppose might be an end to all the CA bashing - since everyone else could be in the same federally sponsored restrictive boat. Maybe the more legally learned here can hang a shingle explaining to gun owners in Montana and Alabama and the Carolinas how to create a legal advantage for one's self regarding AWs and such.

dfletcher
07-14-2008, 5:00 PM
OK, where 2A is concerned, "I don't like McCain" and "I don't like Obama" might suggest indifference at the polls. Maybe they just don't ring your bell in their 2A-specific goals. But consider that there is the strong likelihood that there will be two SCOTUS justices retiring during the next term. That means either McCain or Obama will nominate the next justices. THINK ABOUT THAT! Do you REALLY want justices nominated by the most liberal senator in Congress? Or do you think that a moderate Republican might choose justices who are not ultra-liberal? I'd rather take a chance on moderation than pick a sure thing extreme liberal.

I sincerely want more Roberts, more Alito & Scalia & Thomas on the bench. The good news, or the not so bad news, is that the ones most likely to leave are Stevens and any one of the other liberals. So what was bad now will be replaced by another bad justice.

Now if Justice Kennedy leaves with Obama in the White House - damn do we have trouble.

The follow up cases from Heller will be very important to California. So I say get out and vote if you want to keep & expand Heller.

berto
07-14-2008, 5:08 PM
I sincerely want more Roberts, more Alito & Scalia & Thomas on the bench. The good news, or the not so bad news, is that the ones most likely to leave are Stevens and any one of the other liberals. So what was bad now will be replaced by another bad justice.

Now if Justice Kennedy leaves with Obama in the White House - damn do we have trouble.

The follow up cases from Heller will be very important to California. So I say get out and vote if you want to keep & expand Heller.

Conventional wisdom is that Scalia almost retired in 2000. Scalia and Kennedy are both in their 70s. Roberts had a health scare. Replacing Stevens or Ginsburg with younger versions of themselves doesn't hurt in the short term but may hurt as our guys retire. Much easier to replace any retiring justice with a friendly justice.

Apart from the courts we don't need Obama filling DoJ and ATF with our enemies. and directing those agencies to become a bigger pain in our posteriors.

jmgray
07-14-2008, 9:07 PM
But consider that there is the strong likelihood that there will be two SCOTUS justices retiring during the next term. That means either McCain or Obama will nominate the next justices. THINK ABOUT THAT!

I dont know, that argument is played out IMO. Half of the dissenting justices in Heller were appointed by a republican president. It is too speculative to vote for a pres based on who he may appoint (forget whether they are confirmed) to SCOTUS.

The only positive I gained from Bush in the last 8 years when he let the federal assault weapon ban sunset. Clinton had us set with a with a strong economy, and a Bush burned that capitol. I want a pres who can shape things so I can afford to buy ammo as much as I want one who will protect my 2A rights.

Either way, I'm going to have a better pres in the next 4 years then the one I had in the last 8.

dfletcher
07-14-2008, 9:27 PM
Conventional wisdom is that Scalia almost retired in 2000. Scalia and Kennedy are both in their 70s. Roberts had a health scare. Replacing Stevens or Ginsburg with younger versions of themselves doesn't hurt in the short term but may hurt as our guys retire. Much easier to replace any retiring justice with a friendly justice.

Apart from the courts we don't need Obama filling DoJ and ATF with our enemies. and directing those agencies to become a bigger pain in our posteriors.


I wasn't aware of the "almost" Scalia retirement. That would have been unfortunate. I agree the damage Obama could do via appointments is something to be very aware of - there are probably dozens of positions he could fill, many of them relatively minor in the grand scheme of government but a major pain to us.

packnrat
07-15-2008, 7:23 AM
when obama is in charge, does it mean we will live under sheri law? (i know misspeled).:eek:


:TFH:


.

Crazed_SS
07-15-2008, 8:38 AM
when obama is in charge, does it mean we will live under sheri law? (i know misspeled).:eek:


:TFH:


.

You mean Sharia law? Why would we be living under Sharia law if Obama was elected? Obama isnt Muslim, and even if he were, he wouldnt have the power as President to change our entire system of laws simply by decree.

Crazed_SS
07-15-2008, 8:45 AM
Perhaps I'm wrong, but unlike Kerry I can not imagine gun owners not being aware that Obama is strongly antigun. We're fortunate, I think, to have had the Heller case emphasize that position. So the only conclusion I can reach is that gun owners who would vote for him either hold their 2nd Amendment rights as secondary to other positions Obama may hold or, they believe Obama will not succeed in passing restrictive gun laws; or some combination of the two.

That's pretty much it.

cbn620
07-15-2008, 9:49 PM
I'm not voting for either one of the two goons, but here's my take anyways: I'd rather vote--yes, I'm a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment--
for Obama than McCain.

More and more Democrats and liberals for that matter are making the transition over into "sane" territory. You might me call a liberal if you consider anyone left of center a liberal, and I've been staunchly pro-gun my entire life.

I don't see how Obama is solely going to take away our gun rights. Not even Clinton could manage that one. And no single president thus far has ever been able to contribute substantially to disarming the populace entirely. No single president ever will. The system as a whole and the screwed up government we run will be the cause.

If you ask me, the neo-cons will have us disarmed just as quick as any liberal anyways. Look at Katrina, under the Bush administration we had martial law declared in an emergency and many guns seized. Right here in California, despite having Republicans in office and a Republican administration, we're still far behind all the other states in gun rights.

And Heller? People are quick to kowtow to Bush as if this is a victory for Republicans. So people speculate, "Oh, if we didn't elect Bush Heller wouldn't have been a victory." To that I say, we've had him president for nearly his full two terms and only now we get this victory? And people throw the "5-4" number around as a defense for the Bush administration. If anything that should scare you out of your wits of the current governmental makeup. For more than half of Bush's presidency we had a conservative majority with no major victories, and even when we did finally scrape through with a win it was a 5-4... WITH A REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

So what am I, some kind of Democrat supporter? No, absolutely not. What I'm trying to get across here is that none of these guys are on our side. And our party loyalty is nothing but blindness. Bush or Gore, McCain or Obama, Republican or Democrat, it really doesn't matter. Our government is a giant garbage heap, and whatever rat king is sitting atop it apparently doesn't play too much role. Essentially the only victory we can make in any election these days is to vote for an unlikely or third party candidate who supports our ideals. Sure, they won't be elected and even if they were they wouldn't be any more capable of achieving our goals as any of the two goons, but at least then we've made the statement.

If you truly look at Obama and McCain under the microscope, they're not all that different. Both of them are technically pretty right wing, and both are authoritarians. People get too hung up on the meaningless crap that's fed to them by the news media. These candidates are not dramatically different in the long run. In the neo-lib/neo-con world, we're all going the same place, the only difference is what path we take to get there.

McCain is a nationalist free market imperialist and Obama is a corporatist social-democrat. Both of them are statist and any political theorist worth his weight in styrofoam could tell you this. Fighting over which is worse is like fighting about which side of your jaw they're going to break, right or left.

I say screw it. Keep a strong hold on the grassroots, because slowly over the years third party candidates continue to grow from the grassroots. Organize everything locally and keep voting on those state ballots. That's the only way anyone will ever win anything. Voting for a honcho to rule the cartels from the top down isn't going to change anything until we start fixing things from the bottom up.