19 Comments Add your own

• 1. LD  |  November 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  A hunting shotgun, a trap shotgun, a hunting rifle, a target rifle, maybe a handgun.

  Throw in you first shotgun or your dad’s old rifle and I can easily see one owning multiple guns.

  It seems Joe the gun shop owner is already doing better in an Obama economy. Lets just hope the buyers aren’t forgoing their mortgage payment to buy a new rifle.

• 2. Billybeermonicagar  |  November 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  Hokumboy, Average is what we should all strive to be.

• 3. hokumboy  |  November 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

  Billy,
  I know you’ve got some hard work ahead of you.

• 4. Billybeermonicagar  |  November 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

  Hokum, Hard work is what built our country. I know that you agree. I am also pretty sure you are where you are at because you worked for it. You may have gotten a little help along the way, but mostly it was because you worked for it. I was brought up by parents who said average was o.k., but why be average when you can be more. The American dream, work, achieve, give back to your community and have a few people show up when God calls you. I didn’t vote for Barack, but I will support him because that’s what is right. But I will also question him because that is my right.

• 5. hokumboy  |  November 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

  Good for you Billy,
  Every once in a while you suprise me.
  My folks raised me to not necessarily be average, but to always remember I was neither better, nor worse, than anyone else. A hard thing to do. And I seldom achieve that. Though I do try.
  Although he wasn’t my first choice,I did vote for Obama, both in the primary and the general election. And I too will support him, and question him also. It is, as you say, our right. And also our duty.
  I just hope and pray our country’ll succeed in this new direction and that Change and Hope will give us change, and hope.

• 6. Billybeermonicagar  |  November 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  Well said. Now let’s get to work!

• 7. SNuss  |  November 8th, 2008 at 7:24 am

  So, what IS B.H.O’s agenda on our 2nd Amendment Rights?
  This may answer that question.

  Obama and Guns: Two Different Views
  Monday, April 07, 2008

  By John R. Lott, Jr.

  Something happens to Democrats on the gun issue when they run for president. For John Kerry during 2004, it was awkwardly posing in brand new hunting gear at a seemingly endless series of hunting photo-ops.

  But in what will probably be the most improbable change, the Politico reported on Saturday that Barack Obama was making a big play for gun votes in Pennsylvania. It is not particularly surprising that this change is occurring with the crucial Pennsylvania primary soon approaching.

  With about one million of the country’s 12.5 million hunters, Pennsylvania is number one in the nation in the amount of time its citizens spend hunting. With about 600,000 people with permits to carry concealed handguns, Pennsylvania also has more permit holders than any other state.

  Others, such as Jim Kessler, vice president for policy with Third Way, a progressive think tank, view Obama as starting to position himself for the general election.

  Yet, it should be a hard sell.

  Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.

  For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.”

  Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign “flatly denied” Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

  But then IVI provided Politico the questionnaire with Obama’s own handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI’s board of directors, some of whom have worked on Obama’s past campaigns, told Politico that “I always believed those to be his views, what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

  But the IVI questionnaire isn’t the only one out there.

  In 1998, another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didn’t ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

  Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all handguns and the vast majority of rifles sold in the United States.

  In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

  In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

  I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

  When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

  If taken literally, Obama’s statement to me was closer to what the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating that Obama’s bans would extend well beyond handguns.

  Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

  Even Hillary Clinton disagrees with him on this.

  The Obama campaign’s strategy largely follows 2003 surveys produced by Democratic pollster Mark Penn showing that if Democrats didn’t show “respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety,” voters would presume that they were anti-gun. “The formula for Democrats,” according to Penn, “is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on.”

  It was the same strategy that all the Democratic presidential candidates seemed to follow in 2004.

  Earlier this year, Karlyn Bowman at the American Enterprise Institute said: “The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on the issue well. . . . the right to be able to own a gun seems to be firmly held, and I think that’s why both candidates say what they say.”

  In practice, saying that Obama now believes that the Second Amendment means that there is an individual right to own guns doesn’t mean anything if it can’t even prevent guns from being banned. And even today, despite the pressure from the Pennsylvania primary, Obama is unwilling to state that DC’s or Chicago’s ban on guns are unconstitutional.

  Obama’s website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: “hunting and target shooting.” The notion that people might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn’t something that he sees as legitimate.

  On both his Iraq and trade policies, Obama has already faced the embarrassing situations where his top advisors have had to tell people in other countries not to worry because he doesn’t believe what he is telling American voters.

  With guns, it sure looks like Obama is again telling voters what they want to hear, not what he plans on doing.

  *John Lott, is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

• 8. Linda G  |  November 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

  Would Mr. Cunningham use intellectual prowess and define what it means to be paranoid. Apparently paranoia is defined to include a consumers desire to stock up on an item(s) because they believe (for whatever reason) these item(s) won’t be available to them in the future (or a period of time).

• 9. Pat Cunningham  |  November 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  Linda G: One of the definitions of “paranoia” reads as follows: “a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustful of others.” That tendency is evidenced among those who are rushing to buy guns out of fear that Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress will disarm private citizens. Obama has disavowed such intentions. The record of past occasions when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress shows no move to disarm the public. Fears of gun control should have been allayed when the Supreme Court ruled just this past June that laws and ordinances banning possession of handguns are unconstitutional.

  So, yeah, some gun nuts are paranoid.

• 10. Mr. Baseball  |  November 8th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  This issue is a complete non-issue. Gun ownership is so far down on Obama\’s priority list, it wouldn\’t come up if he served four terms as President. At the federal level, it would rank just above gay marraige. It\’s always brought up during presidential elections by conservatives and it\’s never an issue for a sitting President.

• 11. swamprat  |  November 8th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  The news media doesn’t understand what is happening. Just trying to blame the election of Obama for the run on guns.
  I think the real reason is because there are many blogs saying that we may have a financial collapse as in post WWI Germany or Argentina. They are saying if that happens the best investment right now is guns and ammo. That will be the only way to survive if that happens.
  Not my opinion but there are many who believe it is inevitable now. The debt has gone past the tipping point. Bankruptcy of the USA looms.

• 12. snuss  |  November 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  “So, yeah, some gun nuts are paranoid.” As are some Liberal commentators. Or maybe they are just psychotic.

  “Obama has disavowed such intentions. ” When it helped his campaign to say so. He also said “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother” about Rev. Wright. How many more days passed before Obama threw HIM under the bus? Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words.

• 13. jake  |  November 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am

  trying again — Is it paranoia to recognize a danger based on observable (and historically observed) actions and expressed opinions which illustrate that danger?
  Obama has little respect for our “flawed” Constitutution, which fails
  (in his opinion) to charge the government with responsibilities to actively provide benefits to the people. This is not the purpose of government, as described in the Constution. The People were to remain free of government interference as they chose their own happiness to pursue.
  Obama’s lack of respect for the 2nd ammendment was evident to me when he ommited it in comments on the bill of rights in “The Audacity of Hope”. He will pretend to support the right to bear arms, but he hates and fears it.

• 14. jake  |  November 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  Paranoid: What a Liberal calls a Conservative who knows the Liberal agenda.

• 15. Craig Knauss  |  November 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  “Obama has little respect for our “flawed” Constitutution…” Nice try Jake. But it won’t work. Where did you get that gem from? Did you forget it was Bush and Cheney who regarded the Constitution as a “guideline” instead of being the basis for our government and legal system? Did you forget that it was Cheney who claimed powers that didn’t exist? And it was Bush who handled bills passed by Congress in methods that don’t legally exist? If that isn’t disrespect for the Constitution, I don’t know what is. And if you want to see the “liberal agenda” in print, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights sometime. It’s all right there.

• 16. jake  |  November 11th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

  Pat C./SNuss: Thank you in advance for the content in your posts. I intend to cite them in a future post of mine.

• 17. jake  |  November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

  Tech problems — will try post in 3 segments
  Craig K.: Where did I get “that gem” about Obama’s Views of the “flawed Constitution? Let’s see — Oh yeah! –I got it from Obama.
  He is on tape lamenting that the the Constitution only restricts the power of governments over the people, and doesn’t say what the government “must do on your behalf”.
  He does say that the Constitution ” *was* a remarkable political
  document that paved the way for where we are now”, to damn an obsolete artifact with faint praise.
  On what basis do you assume I am a supporter of Bush or Cheney?
  Do you think that because I attack Obama’s views that I should
  defend Bush, Cheney, or anyone else?
  Do you think it possible that I might have equal contempt for all of them?

• 18. jake  |  November 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  2nd segment

  I do not suggest that you read the Bill of Rights. Your suggestion that I do so indicates (among other things) that you probably have
  knowledge of, and respect for, our individual rights recognized in the
  first 10 ammendments.
  I do however, strongly suggest that you read Obama’s commentary on our rights in “The Audacity of Hope”. Pay particular attention to what he omits.

• 19. jake  |  November 13th, 2008 at 12:31 am

  3rd segment

  Also read Post # 9- SNuss for insight to Obama’s evaluation of the 2nd Ammendment.
  The “liberal agenda” (Obama’s) is clearly hostile to 2nd Ammendment rights, regardless of any denials (see Post # 14-SNuss).
  So we return again to the point of my post, after responding to your tangential remarks: there is no paranoia where there is a rational basis for a perceived danger.

  P.S.
  Did you display paranoia as defined in Pat C’s Post # 11,
  “excessive or irrational suspiciousness (sic) and distrustful
  (sic) of others”, in characterizing my evaluation of Obama’s
  view of the Constitution as some sort of groundless fiction,
  dreamed up by a Bush/Cheney supporter?

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed