North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Registered
398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
can support Obama after checking his record.
Obama's support for banning handguns goes back to his earliest days in politics. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Obama said his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Obama's own handwriting.)
In addition to Chicago, a number of suburban Illinois cities and towns banned the possession of handguns completely in the 1980s (though several of these laws have been repealed since the Heller decision and NRA is challenging the rest in court).

One of these bans, in the town of Wilmette, led to a 2003 case in which a local resident used a handgun to defend himself from a dangerous repeat offender. Though the shooting was found to be justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette's law and faced jail time.
(if you can't defend your family in your house why exist at all)

Barack Obama claims that if he is elected president, he "will protect the rights of hunters." But in 2005, halfway through his first year in the Senate, Obama voted for a ban on practically all center-fire rifle ammunition used for hunting or any other purpose. The ban was proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that blocked reckless lawsuits against the gun industry.
(Backdoor restrictions leading to an outright ban)

The federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition is a rare creature: a federal tax that is fully supported by those who pay it. Long guns and long gun ammunition are taxed at 11 percent; handguns and handgun ammunition are taxed at 10 percent. The tax is a key source of funding for wildlife conservation projects and shooting range construction across the nation.

But in 1999 then-state senator Obama proposed increasing these taxes by 500 percent. It's safe to say that Obama wasn't hoping to build more shooting ranges.
(So only the rich can afford to shoot - I thought Obama was for the 'bottom up'?)

Barack Obama says he supports reinstating the Clinton gun and magazine ban as currently called for in S. 2237, introduced in Congress by Sen. Joe Biden, his running mate. Biden also introduced one of the first federal semi-auto bills in 1989 and worked hard to push the Clinton gun and magazine ban through the Senate in 1993.

This position is nothing new for Obama. On a 1998 "political awareness" survey, he stated as a "principle" that he would support "Ban[ning] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."
(this includes 10/22 Ruger, 1187 Remingtons, Beretta Xtrema2, etc.)

Obama supported SB 1195
Under SB 1195's definitions, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28 gauge or larger, and many semi-auto shotguns, would have been banned, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If SB 1195 had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these guns 90 days after it went into effect would have faced felony charges. Fortunately, less radical views prevailed, and the bill died at the end of the legislative session.

On October 21, 2004, during his U.S. Senate campaign, Obama said that the guns covered by the Clinton ban "have only one purpose, to kill people," adding, "I think it is a scandal that [President Bush] did not authorize a renewal" of the ban.
In April of 2008 Obama repeated his opposition to citizens' self-protection, stating, "I am not in favor of concealed weapons" and argued that Right-to-Carry "creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
(that means only "Obama-approved" people can carry/own guns?)

In 1999 then-state Sen. Obama said there should be a federal law to ban any gun store from operating within five miles of any park or school.

This radical idea, like many other gun control schemes, plays on Americans' fears for their children's safety. But its effects would be dramatic. The Obama scheme would create interlocking zones that would completely cover almost every inhabited area in the nation.
Barack Obama was a board member of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation from 1994-2001. The Joyce Foundation is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups, political operatives, researchers and causes in the country.

In Obama's watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation's most aggressive gun prohibition activist group.

Other groups receiving funds from the Foundation during the Obama years include the handgun ban group CeaseFire, Inc., the Consumer Federation of America (to promote regulations dictating the design of firearms), the Entertainment Industries Council (to promote anti-gun viewpoints among Hollywood writers, producers and actors), the Berkeley (California) Media Studies Group (to provide media training to gun control advocates), the Boston University School of Public Health (to promote the anti-gun JoinTogether website), the Legal Community Against Violence of San Francisco (which drafts anti-gun legislation at the state level), Ohio State University (to support anti-gun professor Saul Cornell's fictitious descriptions of the Second Amendment's history), anti-gun researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute's Violence Prevention Research Program (for a study alleging that gun owners have an increased risk of death), the Northeastern University College of Criminal Justice (toward establishing a firearm lawsuit center) and numerous university public health departments (to conduct anti-gun research).

To put it simply, from a financial standpoint, the Joyce Foundation is the anti-gun movement in this country. And Barack Obama was one of its leaders.
(no wonder Obama never mentions this executive experience)

Before you quote to counter any of these facts, read this:

If you say it's old news and you still back Obama why are you hanging around a hunting web site? Just curious.

· Registered
1,605 Posts
Dog, I've tried so hard to understand that logic (or lack thereof) that it made my head hurt, but all I learned was women aren't the only thing we'll never completely understand.

It's like those people who don't need a gun because they will just call the police if someone bothers them....but spend good money on a fire extinguisher for their home.... :roll:

Nope, there are some things I guess I'll never understand! :eyeroll:

· Registered
3,556 Posts
NO-bama has an objective, take away your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights....there will be a rush to take away legal gun ownership, then to lawfully organize a protest will eventually be a demonstration against the government and will not be allowed....its coming folks and damn fast.

· Super Moderator
8,506 Posts
Another can anyone support a conservative Republican when all they care about is raping the environment for the almighty dollar.What good will all the guns in the world do when there is nothing and no place to hunt?

Sounds like we are between a rock and a hard spot.SOOOOOOO I will look at other issuues besides......can I keep my guns.

· Administrator
20,086 Posts
Another can anyone support a conservative Republican when all they care about is raping the environment for the almighty dollar.
Ken, given all the facts I think you and I would agree on many things so don't read to much into my next comments.

I think republicans look up to business more than they should. I am often confused with how to control greed without destroying capitalism. That said I have seen the democrats as greedy as the republicans. Some of the most rich in Hollywood are democrats, and a couple of years ago someone had a list of the ten most rich people in congress. Nine of the ten were democrats.
As far as the environment I think you must have forgot that it was Bush sr. that signed the no net loss for wetlands. The republicans are not anti environmental it's just that the democrats have constantly said that republicans are anti environmental. It's sort of like biddy basketball. I remember watching our kids and many of the young boys would throw the ball to the kid who constantly told everyone how good he was. In reality he was one of the poorest. I'll bite my tongue about comparing that to posts on here. :D
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.