T Nation

Obama Attacks Gun Owners

Ok lemme get this straight.There’s no drug testing for elected officals but owning a gun will disqualify you?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39345

Nice try, apart from the bit about attacking gun owners, which is really clutching at straws.

I read that whole ridiculous article and nowhere did they mention anything that indicates he is “attacking gun owners”.

Why do some of you post this bullshit and why are so few calling you out on it?

I fail to see how this is an “attack” on gun owners.

If the Obama transition team refuses to hire anyone who has owned a hand gun, then that would be a different story.

It’s not an outright “attack”, I’ll give you that. But think it’s step 1 in his anti-gun campaign and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

[quote]jawara wrote:
It’s not an outright “attack”, I’ll give you that. But think it’s step 1 in his anti-gun campaign and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.[/quote]

Just read his past voting record on the 2nd amendment.

Notables:

-Voted for the prosecution of those who use a firearm in their home as self defense.

-Raising firearm & ammunition taxes by 500%

-Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting and shooting.

-Obama opposes all “right to carry” laws. Face it people. Bad guys are always going to have guns. How can Obama see a problem with qualified individuals being able to carry a concealed weapon? For people like my uncle (a FL resident where concealed carry is legal) who is past the age of being able to fight with his hands, what is he left with? Carrying a firearm. What is the problem with that?

Obamas anti 2nd amendment stance is one of the major reasons I didn’t vote for him other than his tax plan. But I wish him the best in office. I just hopes he focuses on the biggest issues in America…The right to own a firearm is hardly a major issue. They can have my AR-15 when they pry it from my cold dead fingers :wink:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I read that whole ridiculous article and nowhere did they mention anything that indicates he is “attacking gun owners”.

Why do some of you post this bullshit and why are so few calling you out on it?[/quote]

However, the question arises; why would a potential employer give two shits if someone he might hire owned a gun? The only reason said potential employer would give a shit, is if there was a personal bias against gun ownership. I mean, as long as the potential hiree understood that firearms are not welcome at work, then it should be left at that.

My brother had taken his son to a well child visit once, and when the doctor asked him if there were any guns in the home, he told him that it was none of his damn business. Amen to that.

[quote]Chip Duglass wrote:
<<< Just read his past voting record on the 2nd amendment. >>>[/quote]

This is the one and only, I mean single solitary relevant source of information for what a politician is going to do in office. For me they could skip the whole campaign. I know within 12 hours of somebody announcing they’re running all I ever need to.

They will say and do EHN EEEE THING to get elected and it will all change 20 times during the campaign.

It is especially terrifying when you see a guy with an out of the atmosphere leftist record attempting to sound centrist. Obama is the very worst, bar none, I have ever heard of. He made bold faced statements on a whole host of issues that indicated either a body double had lived his life before running for president or he is a frighteningly brazen liar.

The 2nd amendment will be only one of many issues where he shits all over the constitution while looking straight into the camera and telling us he didn’t actually do what he just did.

I was waiting for him to announce, just for chuckles, that he was actually an albino descended from citizens of Suriname who’s heritage had been misrepresented by partisan enemies. Then he and his his crew could laugh at the spin doctors defending the staement and polls showing a majority of Americans believing him.

[quote]Chip Duglass wrote:
jawara wrote:
It’s not an outright “attack”, I’ll give you that. But think it’s step 1 in his anti-gun campaign and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

Just read his past voting record on the 2nd amendment.

Notables:

-Voted for the prosecution of those who use a firearm in their home as self defense.

-Raising firearm & ammunition taxes by 500%

-Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting and shooting.

-Obama opposes all “right to carry” laws. Face it people. Bad guys are always going to have guns. How can Obama see a problem with qualified individuals being able to carry a concealed weapon? For people like my uncle (a FL resident where concealed carry is legal) who is past the age of being able to fight with his hands, what is he left with? Carrying a firearm. What is the problem with that?

Obamas anti 2nd amendment stance is one of the major reasons I didn’t vote for him other than his tax plan. But I wish him the best in office. I just hopes he focuses on the biggest issues in America…The right to own a firearm is hardly a major issue. They can have my AR-15 when they pry it from my cold dead fingers :wink: [/quote]

I have a hard time believing that Obama has painted himself as anything but an anti gunner. Truly he is magical…

http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

However, the question arises; why would a potential employer give two shits if someone he might hire owned a gun? The only reason said potential employer would give a shit, is if there was a personal bias against gun ownership. I mean, as long as the potential hiree understood that firearms are not welcome at work, then it should be left at that.

[/quote]

There is a very good reason because this is politics. That is why he is concerned about My Space pages and whether someone is carrying LEGALLY. Think about that for a second, do you think it is smart for a person in politics today to hire someone without paying attention to who they are in cyberspace as well as whether they own a gun with all necessary paper work and have never been in trouble based on it?

The moment he ignores some issue like that, the media or critics (or both) will be all over it. Who the hell would NOT ask these questions today if they operate on a very public political stage?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I read that whole ridiculous article and nowhere did they mention anything that indicates he is “attacking gun owners”.

Why do some of you post this bullshit and why are so few calling you out on it?[/quote]

No reason. Jawara continually makes the most ridiculous posts that have kernels of truth but are five degrees removed from anything that resembles reality.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

However, the question arises; why would a potential employer give two shits if someone he might hire owned a gun? The only reason said potential employer would give a shit, is if there was a personal bias against gun ownership. I mean, as long as the potential hiree understood that firearms are not welcome at work, then it should be left at that.

Think about that for a second, do you think it is smart for a person in politics today to hire someone without paying attention to who they are in cyberspace Who the hell would NOT ask these questions today if they operate on a very public political stage?[/quote]

If thats the case then why not have drug tests???

[quote]jawara wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

However, the question arises; why would a potential employer give two shits if someone he might hire owned a gun? The only reason said potential employer would give a shit, is if there was a personal bias against gun ownership. I mean, as long as the potential hiree understood that firearms are not welcome at work, then it should be left at that.

Think about that for a second, do you think it is smart for a person in politics today to hire someone without paying attention to who they are in cyberspace Who the hell would NOT ask these questions today if they operate on a very public political stage?
If thats the case then why not have drug tests???
[/quote]

You are relating a QUESTIONNAIRE to a DRUG TEST? If anything you should be asking IF THEY ASKED THE QUESTION of whether they used drugs.

We won’t know because that article cherry picked what it wanted from that questionnaire instead of simply showing the whole questionnaire.

I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, shoot somewhat regularly, kill things for food, and oppose even more gun legislation.

Having said that, this thread is misleading at best. The story covers a questionnaire for high ranking future presidential staff (for lack of a better phrase).

In this context, it makes sense for the future President to ensure that everyone’s skeletons are out of the closet and asking that folks register their arms (amongst other behaviors), while seemingly overkill, makes sense in that context. Much better than a headline about Senior Obama booked on a gun charge (unlikely, but possible).

I wouldn’t be surprised if similar questions are asked in Republican teams as well but we just don’t hear about it because they’re generally ‘gun friendly’. Hell, it’s standard for family doctors to ask, in questionnaire, if you have firearms in the house (I ignore the question).

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, shoot somewhat regularly, kill things for food, and oppose even more gun legislation.

Having said that, this thread is misleading at best. The story covers a questionnaire for high ranking future presidential staff (for lack of a better phrase).

In this context, it makes sense for the future President to ensure that everyone’s skeletons are out of the closet and asking that folks register their arms (amongst other behaviors), while seemingly overkill, makes sense in that context. Much better than a headline about Senior Obama booked on a gun charge (unlikely, but possible).

I wouldn’t be surprised if similar questions are asked in Republican teams as well but we just don’t hear about it because they’re generally ‘gun friendly’. Hell, it’s standard for family doctors to ask, in questionnaire, if you have firearms in the house (I ignore the question).
[/quote]

The point is, with all of this Crying Wolf, no one is going to be paying attention if something credible actually pops up. We get it, some here literally seem to hate Obama…and they think they are rational as a result.

These threads show that to not be the case at all. Some of you may need counseling.

re: crying wolf-- Agreed.

Threads (and discussions in general) like this do nothing to help the cause.

The pendulum has swung (swang?) Left and there will be no shortage of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) from the other side. There has been 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome

Now, having said that, and knowing the battles already fought against the anti-gun lobby and legiscritters, I’m not expecting much from the President-elect or the current Majority in terms of looking out for my 2nd Amendment interests. In the next 2-4 years, I expect to see many threads here and elsewhere linking to bona fide assaults on the Second.

That’s not derangement, that’s just being realistic.

The supreme court ruled in favor of guns being an individual right in “Dist. of Columbia vs. Heller”. There is not much Obama could do even if he wanted to.

THE SKY IS FALLING, AHHHH!!!

[quote]Shaved wrote:
The supreme court ruled in favor of guns being an individual right in “Dist. of Columbia vs. Heller”. There is not much Obama could do even if he wanted to.

THE SKY IS FALLING, AHHHH!!![/quote]

Oh but they may try. Just like the Dems will try and rid the airwaves of conservative right wing radio shows.

[quote]Shaved wrote:
The supreme court ruled in favor of guns being an individual right in “Dist. of Columbia vs. Heller”. There is not much Obama could do even if he wanted to.

THE SKY IS FALLING, AHHHH!!![/quote]

You must not really understand the implications of that ruling and what it still leaves open to anti-gun legislation.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.