PDA

View Full Version : Surprise: Obama against concealed carry


aileron
04-04-2008, 8:13 AM
What else would we expect.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/03/surprise-obama-against-concealed-carry/


Surprise: Obama against concealed carry
posted at 7:25 pm on April 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Amanda Carpenter thinks it’s a big deal and a quasi-reversal from his previous “moderate” rhetoric on the issue acknowledging the need for home defense. I don’t see it. Knowing everything you now know about Obama — including the fact that he thinks someone should be guilty of a felony if a burglar steals his gun and uses it to shoot someone — what would you guess would be his position? Well, that’s exactly what it is. The doctrinaire liberal takes the doctrinaire liberal stance, as he did in 1996, all within the context of the new “nonpartisan” spirit he’s bringing to Washington, mind you:

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

And less innocent people too, natch. The real bombshell here is the possibility, per the Tribune-Review article linked by Carpenter, that Hillary might oppose outlawing concealed carry. Can that be? Our Hillary? I can’t find anything on point on Google, but doubtless that’s by design. She has no clear-cut position on this issue anymore, for the simple reason that “I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street…” Like Krauthammer said, she’s the Great Navigator. That’s why we love her. Or, at least, prefer her to Obama.

Exit question advice: If you want to attack Obama on this subject, do it now, because once the Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment comes down it’s going to be the last thing he’ll want to talk about. Especially if that decision goes his way.

savageevo
04-04-2008, 8:39 AM
I guess he wasn't there when Virginia Tech happen. Everybody knows the students was not armed and the only person that was armed was that wacko. Imagined if the students was armed. I am sure there would be less deaths. You all know he was never there when the episode of his preacher said all those hateful things. This guy is a flopper. I pray he is not the president.

56Chevy
04-04-2008, 9:07 AM
This guy is a flopper. I pray he is not the president.
I heard him answer a question about what he would do if a plane was flying into the capitol building. He didn't answer the question, and he turned it into a rant on Bush and Iraq.:rolleyes: Personally, I'd think I'd let it fly into the capitol building if Congress and the Senate were in session.:rolleyes:

pbrand
04-04-2008, 9:44 AM
Found from within that same article:

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…
At no point [on his campaign site] does Obama recognize an individual right to own handguns, or explicitly recognize a right for Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves or others. The site explicitly states that Barack Obama recognizes civilian gun ownership for two just purposes, “hunting and target shooting.”
Once his prohibitive views of firearms ownership become known to America’s millions of gun owners, they may well decide that a gun-grabbing Barack Obama promises the kind of “change” that they can’t believe in.

yellowfin
04-04-2008, 9:47 AM
Interestingly enough, the voters don't reject legislators here who want the same thing either.

Paladin
04-04-2008, 10:32 AM
The original column is at: http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/03/obama_comes_out_against_concealed_carry
It has some worthwhile active links.

Obama Comes Out Against Concealed Carry
By Amanda Carpenter
Thursday, April 3, 2008

Barack Obama is embracing anti-gun policies in the run-up to a Democratic presidential debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

These remarks break from Obama’s previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.

While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”

Obama elaborated later that month in a political forum sponsored by ABC News and the Politico. He said: “I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

Obama’s tough talk on gun control may be prompted by Philadelphia-based Democratic leaders who are pressuring Clinton and Obama to adopt harder stances on gun control. This issue is expected to come up in ABC News’ Democratic debate on April 16 in Philadelphia. 32 people were shot to death on the campus of Virginia Tech by Seung-Hui Cho April 16, 2007.

Obama’s new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain, who both are for concealed-carry.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said in a statement Obama should apologize and revise his stance. “Barack Obama ignorantly believes that legally-armed Americans are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies evidently law,” [sic] said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He has been insisting for months he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but here he is now campaigning in Pennsylvania, stating essentially he would prefers Americans not exercise that right.”

Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.

yellowfin
04-04-2008, 11:54 AM
The question is why he thinks he can get away with this. Why is it that we are so silent and so apparently secondary that we are anything that anyone trying to get elected can ignore?

532Fastback
04-04-2008, 11:59 AM
I guess he wasn't there when Virginia Tech happen. Everybody knows the students was not armed and the only person that was armed was that wacko. Imagined if the students was armed. I am sure there would be less deaths. You all know he was never there when the episode of his preacher said all those hateful things. This guy is a flopper. I pray he is not the president.
i hope he doesn't win either, he sounds more and more like the anti-christ everyday.

blackberg
04-04-2008, 12:15 PM
And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children,

Why would a child need a background check?

-bb

Paladin
04-04-2008, 12:42 PM
The question is why he thinks he can get away with this. Why is it that we are so silent and so apparently secondary that we are anything that anyone trying to get elected can ignore?They can't ignore us. I mentioned that there were worthwhile active links in the original story and below is one of the other stories an active link takes you to.

Several CGN'ers lately have said that we're losing, the antis are winning, etc. Nope. Every Friday I visit www.nra-ila.org and read their stories and my take is that we have won the majority of states (http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php); some of those states still try introducing anti legislation, but it crashes and burns; the "last holdout states" (Hawaii, IL and some N.E. states do continue to lose on many issues; and, IMHO, the PRK is now "in play" -- we lose some, we win some (e.g., Katrina emergency protection of RKA (right to keep our arms)). We should be excited and optimistic since, IMO, the number of hardcore RKBA people who are willing to be politically active outstrips the number of hardcore antis who are willing to be active. Compare CGN today to the CGN of 3 years ago. OLLs are in the PRK now. Heller will probably go our way. TBJ is hauling CLEOs into federal court. CGN and CalNRA are coordinating efforts. Be optimistic!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080324/NATION/143263249

Philadelphia wants hopefuls' stances on guns

By S.A. Miller
March 24, 2008

Philadelphia's Democratic leaders say they'll press Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to back stricter gun laws, despite the risk of angering voters throughout the rest of Pennsylvania and possibly damaging the party's nominee in the general election.

Gun violence in Philadelphia — 331 homicides from gunfire in 2007 — thrust firearms laws to the top of the agenda for city voters, and they don't care about the potential political pitfalls for the presidential candidates, said Carol Campbell, a Democratic ward leader in the city.

"If you can't deal with it, then you've got a problem," said Mrs. Campbell, who supports Mr. Obama and heads an alliance of black ward leaders.

"That's what's on the minds of most Philadelphians," she said.

Democratic ward leader Ralph Wynder, who is supporting Mr. Obama, said the candidates should address the pressing issues, but conceded that backing Philadelphia's push for tougher gun laws would be "political suicide."

"You are probably going to be damaged goods in the state," Mr. Wynder said.

"There are just some questions you can't win with an answer. I guess that's why politicians double-talk so much," he said.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have forged a middle-of-the-road response to questions about gun laws, both saying they respect the constitution's Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms and they recognize government's need to impose "reasonable" weapon regulations.

"There can be a meeting of the minds between lawful gun owners and those who believe we can protect Second Amendment rights without giving in to the bad guys," Mrs. Clinton, of New York, told the Dallas Morning News earlier this month.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, vowed at the Nevada Democratic primary debate in January to respect gun rights while "we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

Nevertheless, Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Obama's voting records, which includes support of a federal assault-weapons ban, get an "F" grade from National Rifle Association (NRA), which has about 4 million members.

"They will do everything they can to run away from the past, run away from their record and camouflage their position on gun control," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief Washington lobbyist.

Pennsylvania, which holds its Democratic primary April 22, has one of the highest per capita NRA membership rates in the nation.

Questions about gun control are expected to re-emerge on the campaign trail in June when the U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's gun ban, the first time in 69 years the court has examined the Second Amendment.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama did not join a bipartisan amicus curiae brief filed in the Supreme Court case that supported the Second Amendment guarantee of individual gun rights and opposed the District's law.

The "friend of the court" brief was signed by 250 House members and 55 senators, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Mr. McCain has a "C" grade from the NRA. Although he has a strong gun-rights voting record and opposes an assault-weapons ban, he supports campaign-finance laws that limit political advocacy by issue groups, such as the NRA, and supports tighter firearms sales regulations at gun shows.

About 49 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws while 11 percent want more lenient laws and 38 percent want laws to remain the same, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll last month.

The nationwide poll of 1,016 adults showed 73 percent of voters think the Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for individuals and 20 percent think it applies only to members of state militias such as National Guard.

Shotgun Man
04-04-2008, 12:52 PM
Why would a child need a background check?

-bb

I'm all for background checks for children.

MrTuffPaws
04-04-2008, 12:58 PM
i hope he doesn't win either, he sounds more and more like the anti-christ everyday.

Oh please :rolleyes: Pro 2nd he is not, but the anti-christ?!?!?!

MrTuffPaws
04-04-2008, 12:59 PM
I'm all for background checks for having children.

Fixed that for you ;)

532Fastback
04-04-2008, 1:07 PM
Oh please :rolleyes: Pro 2nd he is not, but the anti-christ?!?!?!
i was saying it figuratively, hes proposing all this good change (just like the anti-christ supposedly does before taking power)
I don't want a racist president though, you don't hang out with someone that you don't agree with or go to a church you don't agree with either.

SemiAutoSam
04-04-2008, 1:22 PM
That's a good socialist.

Fixed that for you ;)

CCWFacts
04-04-2008, 1:30 PM
He can get a dozen guns (including dangerous automatic weapons) off the streets any time he wants by insisting that his Secret Service protection unit goes unarmed. If he really believes that having concealed guns in the hands of trained, background checked people dangerous, then he certainly wouldn't want his dozen-or-so trained, background-checked people to be carrying GUNS near him.

And this must include not just dangerous semi-automatic pistols, but even worse stuff. They probably have fully-automatic stuff which doesn't belong on our streets.

The gun banning types don't make any distinction between guns in the hands of violent felons and guns in the hands of trained, background-checked, law abiding CCW holders, so why make a distinction between violent felons and trained, background-checked secret service agents?

jumbopanda
04-04-2008, 4:36 PM
Wow, whodathunkit? :rolleyes:

yellowfin
04-04-2008, 4:38 PM
I dare him to tell me to my face that my rights mean nothing. He is a coward. He talks about you and me in the hypothetical, hoping that none of us would publicly confront him for the disgraceful drivel he peddles.