• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Interesting piece from the Chicago Tribune

ABNinfantryman

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
204
Location
Columbus, Georgia, United States
imported post

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-14/news/ct-oped-0214-chapman-20100212_1_gun-control-common-sense-gun-safety-laws-gun-rights

Thought this was a good read and clicked with what I already thought. Obama won't touch the gun issue because he knows it'sa loser, and other democrats are learning that as well. It also points out the pro-gun items he's helped pass. Basically if you take the things you know are losers off the table you get rid of something for the other side to use against you.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

February 14, 2010|By Steve ChapmanAmong the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked — except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton — and allowed to expire in 2004 — has no visible place on Obama's agenda.

Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.

But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate — the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.

In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.

Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

He doesn't have to legislate more gun control. All he and Holder have to do is wait for the next crisis ie more "militia" groups plotting against the government to declare martial law. I'm already sick of this %#$
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
imported post

GUNS RIGHTS WATCH http://gunsmagazine.com/GUNSRights.html
David Codrea
A Healthy Republic Needs More Than Guns

It wasn’t just the anti-gunners pointing derisively at Gun Owners of America for raising flags on the “federal health care reform” bill wending its way through Congress. But the talking points started at the very top. From a GOA alert:

“On the official White House blog, deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer denied the health care bill would affect gun owners. After all, he writes, ‘there is no mention [of] “gun-related health data” or anything like it anywhere in either the Senate or the House bills.’”

The Internet is where much of the criticism of GOA’s concerns was sounded—including from some in the “pro-gun” camp hostile to GOA’s hardline approach to politics. We were told the “no-compromise gun lobby” was seeing things that weren’t there. Besides, no less a Second Amendment luminary than NRA-endorsed Harry Reid was pushing the health care bill. And GOA’s protestations that provisions of the bill could be interpreted to accommodate gun registration, expansion of prohibited persons, and the consideration of firearms ownership for insurance premiums, were dismissed by some as unfounded hysteria.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Yippy kai yay - wupty friggin doo

Only time will tell what will truely happen.

President Obama has not sunk his ships. You think presidents haven't gone back on their staunchly decreed campaigning word?

"Read my lips no new taxes!"

Surprise indeed.

With a great role ofleadership comes great responsibility. Yet, also with that responsibility comes humility, disappointment, andsome loss of soul.

You can't appease everyone, you will have to go back on your word, whether it was a lie, an oversight, or an honest change of plans for what is necessary.

Dogs take dumps in arbitrary places and eventually, we're all gonna step in some.

Get over it and don't let you bloody guard down.

And on another note:
Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

I figured this had more to do with the fact that the democratically controlled house stifled President Bush's attempts[several yearsprior]to not raise taxes and to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, forcing him to compromise by raising taxes. Guns are great and wonderful, but I still believe the Union is more collectively pissed off about taxes than about assault weapons, and has thus always been the case.
 
Top