'Obama campaign tries to get NRA ads pulled'. John R. Lott, Jr.

[Guest]

imported post

I really don't think that Obama cares about the NRA ads at this point in his campaign as recent polls show. Of course if you go to FAUX News they would have McCain leading by 100 percentage points...

I think everyone gets it now, it is the Economy Stupid! We all know that a down economy is a weak point for the Republicans and a Strong point for the Dems, in the past and certainly in this election cycle.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Teej wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.

Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?

In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.

Judges that Obama wouldappoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:

* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A

. . . .

Who do you think you're kidding?

. . . .

You actually expect me to believe that the guy. . . is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???

Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies.

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

 

[Rattrapper]

imported post

Looks like some one has has been drinking the left wing kool-aid

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:



Gunslinger wrote:

Like I've said in every political thread, gun control isn't the only issue this election and those of voting based solely on the wedge issue of who's more gun friendly are going to have a rude awakening, kind of like Dubya II.

Couldn't have said it better . . . .

So similarly, if a candidate agrees with me, and supports abortion rights, gay marriage, and foetal stem cell research, I shouldn't allow his support for de jure racial segregationin public accomodations to stop me from voting for him? I mean, THAT would make me a "single issue voter"...

There's no such thing as "de jure" racial segration, so I miss your point. And if it means one issue can override agreement in 99, then you 'd be an idiot. What some of the crypto-literate posters can't seem to understand is that democracy is compromise. Call it lesser of evils, or closer to the mark. You vote for whomever is best for you. No one is perfect. Obooba comes pretty close to perfection in being a @#$%ing @#$%, however. Hope that isn't too partisan for a certain halfwit on the thread.

How old are you? There was DE JURE racial segregation in this country well into my childhood. I was in grammar school when it was abolished.

There's no reason why a candidate couldn't want to REINSTATE racial segregation. To hear the Obama supporters tell it, I shouldn't let that ONE thing keep me from voting for that candidate... unless the ONLY issue that I can't be a one issue voter on is repressive gun controls.

Obama is HORRIFICALLY anti-gun. We're winning the gun control battle. Why on earth vote for the man who is to gun control what Lester Maddox was to segregation?

I remember segration in the '60s very well, also in my youth. What I said is now there is no such thing, under the law=de jure. It may well exist de facto, but that's another discussion. Other than that, I think we agree: one issue is no reason to vote for anyone unless it is egregious in the extreme.

 

[DopaVash]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

I have a very liberal friend who tells me that to think the Republican Party is the same party it was 40 years ago is crazy. Then he likes to turn around and say they do the same old thing they've always done (usually talking about Race [Repubs were the first to have a Black delegate]). I think your point on this is quite wrong, and if you look at more recent past, which to me would be better evidence of what is going to happen in the near future, your argument fails.

No judges should be influenced by their judicial philosophy, they should be influenced by the document they're sworn to protect. That is there only job: To decided if laws are constitutional or not. If they aren't, they're struck down. This legislation from the bench crap is a big problem in our country.

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

Dukester wrote:

I really don't think that Obama cares about the NRA ads at this point in his campaign as recent polls show. Of course if you go to FAUX News they would have McCain leading by 100 percentage points...

I think everyone gets it now, it is the Economy Stupid! We all know that a down economy is a weak point for the Republicans and a Strong point for the Dems, in the past and certainly in this election cycle.

You're half right dookie, it is the economy, but most of us know the democrats are the ones who've screwed it up. Everything that's going on right now is due to the housing mess they created. Even Clinton admits dems blocked efforts by the repubs to fix it. Try again dookie, but this time investigate it from independent sources, not the daily kos.:quirky

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

DopaVash wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

I have a very liberal friend who tells me that to think the Republican Party is the same party it was 40 years ago is crazy. Then he likes to turn around and say they do the same old thing they've always done (usually talking about Race [Repubs were the first to have a Black delegate]). I think your point on this is quite wrong, and if you look at more recent past, which to me would be better evidence of what is going to happen in the near future, your argument fails.

No judges should be influenced by their judicial philosophy, they should be influenced by the document they're sworn to protect. That is there only job: To decided if laws are constitutional or not. If they aren't, they're struck down. This legislation from the bench crap is a big problem in our country.

Unfortunately, there has not been a Supreme Court case on incorporation in the last 40 years.

Nor is it quite realistic to say "just read the document:" the document says nothing about incorporation, for example.

Judges have different ways of reading the Constitution: Scalia likes the federalist papers as a guide. I don't agree with him much, but I also don'tquestionhis motivesfor that.

 

[SickTag]

imported post

nova wrote:

yeahYeah wrote:

um, that would be anything more then a single shot .22 rifle.

in a world where a broken pencil sharpener is considered a 'weapon', do you really think they'll 'allow' you to have even a single shot .22? Hell no!

Yeah seriously. Better get your guns now before they become "illegal." Better enjoy your rights now before Obama the Oppressor takes over.

Also, if they suddenly make a gun illegal unless u register it, do not register it. They did that in California and then used the list of registered guns to come and collect them. :X

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Teej wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.

Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?

In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.

Judges that Obama wouldappoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:

* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A

. . . .

Who do you think you're kidding?

. . . .

You actually expect me to believe that the guy. . . is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???

Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies.

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

Did you notice that you didn't really address what I said? Not as though you actually COULD and maintain the same line...

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Teej wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.

Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?

In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.

Judges that Obama wouldappoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:

* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A

. . . .

Who do you think you're kidding?

. . . .

You actually expect me to believe that the guy. . . is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???

Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies.

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

Did you notice that you didn't really address what I said? Not as though you actually COULD and maintain the same line...

Obama agrees with the Supreme Court's view of 2A under Heller.

Incorporation is a separate issue: I think that he not only agrees with broader incorporation but would appoint judges that are more likely than McCain appointees to agree with this view. That has NOTHING to do withObama's views about guns, but much to do with Obama's views as a moderate constitutional lawyer.

The NRA has its own reasons for opposing Obama so vehemently: just like they did for sneakily opposing the Heller litigation before the Cato guys brought it to the Supreme Court. For NRA, Heller was a threat to their funding; opposing Obamais a tool for raising money.

Guys of 2A land, you are being duped!

 

[mvpel]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Obama agrees with the Supreme Court's view of 2A under Heller.

Right, the view that you can ban certain kinds of scary guns, that you can ban guns in places which make people "uncomfortable," that you can ban carry of guns outside of the home, etc.

If he agreed with the Supreme Court's view of the 2A under Heller in any kind of intellectually honest way, he would have signed the Senate's amicus brief, would not have voted against immunity from prosecution for gun-ban violators who used a banned gun in defense of their own lives in their own homes, and would be working diligently to see to it that the Chicago handgun ban was repealed. Got any late-breaking news on the final point, because I sure as hell don't.

It's very easy for anti-gunners to make the Heller decision say, in their minds, exactly what they want it to say. Just look at what they did to the Miller decision for 70 years!!

 

[rodbender]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Obama's views as a moderate constitutional lawyer.

:what:WHAT???!!!:whatin cadence) LEFT..LEFT..LEFT..ssshhh..LEFT

 

[Guest]

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

Dukester wrote:

I really don't think that Obama cares about the NRA ads at this point in his campaign as recent polls show. Of course if you go to FAUX News they would have McCain leading by 100 percentage points...

I think everyone gets it now, it is the Economy Stupid! We all know that a down economy is a weak point for the Republicans and a Strong point for the Dems, in the past and certainly in this election cycle.

You're half right dookie, it is the economy, but most of us know the democrats are the ones who've screwed it up. Everything that's going on right now is due to the housing mess they created. Even Clinton admits dems blocked efforts by the repubs to fix it. Try again dookie, but this time investigate it from independent sources, not the daily kos.:quirky

Its called ReaganOmics, going back 30 years and guess what party it falls under? It happened under Bush and this current administration, we have been under his regime for the last 8 years. Bush didn't see this coming? Just a few weeks ago or about 2 weeks prior to this current mess Bush says the Economy is fundamentally strong a long with McCain and they are both idiots, the Economy is not fundamentally strong... Oh, forgot to tell you, the economy lost another 159,000 jobs as the unemployment figures were released yesterday. Not really looking good for the folks on the Right!

Praying for war is a curious screen name, what are you, a coward? People who wish or promote war are generally cowards. I mean look at Bush & Cheny perfect examples, two cowards!

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Teej wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.

Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?

In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.

Judges that Obama wouldappoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:

* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A

. . . .

Who do you think you're kidding?

. . . .

You actually expect me to believe that the guy. . . is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???

Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies.

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

Did you notice that you didn't really address what I said? Not as though you actually COULD and maintain the same line...

Obama agrees with the Supreme Court's view of 2A under Heller.

Incorporation is a separate issue: I think that he not only agrees with broader incorporation but would appoint judges that are more likely than McCain appointees to agree with this view. That has NOTHING to do withObama's views about guns, but much to do with Obama's views as a moderate constitutional lawyer.

The NRA has its own reasons for opposing Obama so vehemently: just like they did for sneakily opposing the Heller litigation before the Cato guys brought it to the Supreme Court. For NRA, Heller was a threat to their funding; opposing Obamais a tool for raising money.

Guys of 2A land, you are being duped!

...and that's why Obama SUPPORTS the Chicago handgun BAN? It's why he wants to BAN concealed carry?

I'm sorry, if you're going to lie to me, at least show me enough respect to tell me a lie worthy of a non-mentally handicapped adult. I've got second cousins in grade school who wouldn't believe that nonsense. And they go to PUBLIC school.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:



Obama agrees with the Supreme Court's view of 2A under Heller.

Incorporation is a separate issue: I think that he not only agrees with broader incorporation but would appoint judges that are more likely than McCain appointees to agree with this view. That has NOTHING to do withObama's views about guns, but much to do with Obama's views as a moderate constitutional lawyer.

The NRA has its own reasons for opposing Obama so vehemently: just like they did for sneakily opposing the Heller litigation before the Cato guys brought it to the Supreme Court. For NRA, Heller was a threat to their funding; opposing Obamais a tool for raising money.

Guys of 2A land, you are being duped!

________________________________________________________________

DEANIMATOR WROTE:

...and that's why Obama SUPPORTS the Chicago handgun BAN? It's why he wants to BAN concealed carry?

I'm sorry, if you're going to lie to me, at least show me enough respect to tell me a lie worthy of a non-mentally handicapped adult. I've got second cousins in grade school who wouldn't believe that nonsense. And they go to PUBLIC school.

The last time Obama wasasked about the Chicago handgun ban he proclaimed his strong support of the Second Amendment. My guess is that the next time he is asked he will say thatthe banshould be eliminated.

As for his feelings on concealed carry, I disagree with him, but don't think that they matter much because he won't be able to do anything with them: Kinda like George Dubya's views on AWB.

The other issues respecting incorporation and Bill of Rights enforcement matter more as a practical matter topeoples' abilities to exercise 2A rights. That is where Obama is better than McCain.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

The Donkey wrote:



Obama agrees with the Supreme Court's view of 2A under Heller.

Incorporation is a separate issue: I think that he not only agrees with broader incorporation but would appoint judges that are more likely than McCain appointees to agree with this view. That has NOTHING to do withObama's views about guns, but much to do with Obama's views as a moderate constitutional lawyer.

The NRA has its own reasons for opposing Obama so vehemently: just like they did for sneakily opposing the Heller litigation before the Cato guys brought it to the Supreme Court. For NRA, Heller was a threat to their funding; opposing Obamais a tool for raising money.

Guys of 2A land, you are being duped!

________________________________________________________________

DEANIMATOR WROTE:

...and that's why Obama SUPPORTS the Chicago handgun BAN? It's why he wants to BAN concealed carry?

I'm sorry, if you're going to lie to me, at least show me enough respect to tell me a lie worthy of a non-mentally handicapped adult. I've got second cousins in grade school who wouldn't believe that nonsense. And they go to PUBLIC school.

The last time Obama wasasked about the Chicago handgun ban he proclaimed his strong support of the Second Amendment. My guess is that the next time he is asked he will say thatthe banshould be eliminated.

As for his feelings on concealed carry, I disagree with him, but don't think that they matter much because he won't be able to do anything with them: Kinda like George Dubya's views on AWB.

The other issues respecting incorporation and Bill of Rights enforcement matter more as a practical matter topeoples' abilities to exercise 2A rights. That is where Obama is better than McCain.

"His strong support for the Second Amendment"... which means, HANDGUN BANS? BANS ON CONCEALED CARRY? He has NOT, and WILL not come out against ANY ban until AFTER it's overruled. It's like Lester Maddox coming out for integration... AFTER segregation has been struck down.

I'm not five years old. I can't be distracted from OBAMA'S anti-gun fanaticism by you saying "George Bush" over and over. Making up nonsense from whole cloth about Obama's imaginary support for incorporating the 2nd Amendment won't work any better. Your contempt for people's intelligence is insulting... fortunately insulting to enough gun owners in Ohio to have lost Kerry the last election, and hopefully this one for Obama.

To characterize Obama as anything but fanatically anti-gun, even more so than Hillary Clinton, is simply a childish and despicable lie. I KNOW a pro-gun Democrat when I see one, like Ted Strickland, the governor of Ohio. Obama isn't fit to wipe Strickland's behind.

But hey, I've slapped enough Holocaust deniers around on FidoNet and the internet to know how to deal with brazen liars. You just have to refuse to believe the lie and to say so, loudly.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Teej wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.

Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?

In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.

Judges that Obama wouldappoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:

* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A

. . . .

Who do you think you're kidding?

. . . .

You actually expect me to believe that the guy. . . is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???

Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies.

40 years ago, it was moderates on the Court who advocated incorporation under the 14th amendment against conservatives who argued against it.

I expect the same dynamic now on 2A as has occurred regarding other rights recognized from the bill of rights.

Most judges are moreinfluenced by their judicial philosophy than they are by the politics of specific issues like their views about guns.

Oh, and by the way, you left a bit out of your "quote" of me, DIDN'T you? Here it is, UNALTERED:

"Who do you think you're kidding?

Obama supported the DC handgun ban. He STILL supports the Chicago handgun ban.

You actually expect me to believe that the guy who thinks nobody has the RIGHT to own a handgun, is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???

Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies."

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Factcheck.org has a great deal to say about the NRA's charges against Obama, most of it uncomplimentary:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

While I disagree with a few of factcheck's observations, I certainly do not think that they are setting out to lie.

NRA, on the other hand was obviously trying to distort Obama's record.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Anybody that uses factcheck to get "facts" is either a moron or a big time lefty.

 

[dukenukum]

imported post

Has any one seen the " the lifetime NRA member " ad from the Obama camp