Posted 2 months, 29 days ago in 
Loading ...
I respectfully disagree with Mackenzie Gibson’s comments on Barack Obama. He is clearly a gun-grabber and always has been. The misnamed American Hunters and Shooters Association is a left leaning organization that should be called the Anti-NRA.
In 1998, Obama was on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, a leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations. As a state senator he voted against laws protecting citizens who use firearms in self-defense of their homes. In 2005, he voted for Ted Kennedy’s attempt to ban nearly all rifle ammunition for hunting and sporting. He supported legislation designed to bankrupt the firearms industry, and endorsed Chicago’s total ban on handguns. And the list of his anti-gun activities goes on endlessly.
He has openly stated he wants to eliminate “Right to Carry” laws. Mr. Gibson should watch what the man does, not what he says. Obama has consistently voted anti-gun his entire career, and calling him a Constitutional Law Professor is a great discredit to all who rightly carry that title.
KELLY HARTFORD
Grand Junction
14 Responses to “Obama does not support Second Amendment rights”
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think it is kind of ridiculous for us to have to figure out the rules by trial and error. Some posts were removed that were totally on point. It would appear that Sentinel staff is trying to discourage people from posting. After all who wants to go to the trouble to write a lengthy post just so they can nit-pic through it for a reason to take it down. And who knows what that reason might be? Apparently the Sentinel editorial staff feels no pressing need to communicate with the great unwashed. Kind of makes you wonder if your subscription is well placed, doesn’t it? I have been taking home delivery since the sixties. I even defended the Sentinel until a couple of weeks ago. You know what they say, fool me once….
By the way, I agree with everything the letter writer wrote.
This is a test message.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer states that Senator Obama does not support Second Amendment “rights’. That is a quite false charge, as he has already stated that he will support the Second Amendment, as defined by the current court.
It is noteworthy however, that those who call loudest and most frequently for their rights, including that of the Second Amendment, would appear to conveniently ‘leave off’ the qualification and restrictive feature of that amendment, that defines the purpose, and restricts the applicability of the amendment.
The Second Amendment was clearly not placed there so that everyone in this country would have guns to turn on each other, that is a relatively recent distortion of the wording, but rather for defense of the state.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Obama has *stated* that he will support 2nd amendment rights, but he has also at least mildly disparaged gun owners with his fund raiser comment, “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion … as a way to explain their frustrations.”
As Kelly points out in the letter, Obama has consistently *acted* against the interests of gun owners. His inconsistent statements coupled with his consistent actions make evaluating his position a bit challenging, but the interpretation that he is anti-2nd amendment matches half of his statements and all of his actions.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Again on this site, posts seem to be disappearing. Ullr, I suppose you have your answer now on your test message which as I recall said I respectively disagree with everything the letter writer said. While your point of view is the exact opposite of mine, one must wonder why your post was censored and mine was not. Posts seem to come and go with the wind. What is the reason that the Daily Sentinel accepts one post and censors another. What prompted the DS sudden interest in rules. I can easily recall when the atheists on this site were promoting their campaign to end the city council invocations. There were no rules. There was no censorship. When many of the same people were arguing their points on evolution, there were no rules. There was no censorship. When the same folks were daily, daily insinuating that a local elected official had sex with animals, and their reference to the word bestiality, there were no rules. There was no censorship. It should be noted that the editorial staff endorsed the opponent of this elected official.
Then came a letter to the editor by Anne Landman, the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists, taking sharp issue with another letter to the editor and with the Daily Sentinel’s use of an old photo. Still no interest in rules or censorship. Then the users started to post their replies to Anne Landman’s letter. Now suddenly the DS editorial staff starts to apply the censorship pen and a whole string of posts disappear for ever. When inquiries were made as to why, we were told it had to do with the old photo, and references were made to fruit of the poison tree as the reason that the letter to the editor and all posts had to be removed, even though many of the posts made no reference to the old photo. In fact they clearly identified the flag reference by using Ms. Landman’s description.
Complaints were submitted and shortly thereafter some users experienced difficulty in posting on GJSentinel.com. Either their posts disappeared in part or in total or were removed. Although no explanation was ever given, we were left to assume this was more “editorializing”. On various occasions, dating back several months, I have posted what I believe to be a strategy by some users to attack new posters without mercy, especially those posters of a conservative persuasion in a clear attempt to control the content of comments on GJSentinel.com. There were often repeated requests for intervention by the Sentinel editorial staff to prevent this from happening, yet at that time not a single post was altered or removed, and as I recall the only comment from the editorial staff was from Todd saying that no rules had been violated and therefore the DS was helpless in the matter. There was no pretence by the DS staff to evaluate the appropriateness or decency of any post., until the Anne Landman letter to the editor was challenged. Now suddenly comes great concern and wholesale removal of posts and new rules although no one from the DS has bothered to explain how these new rules are being applied. Clearly over the last several months, there has been a growing conservative voice by the users of GJSentinel.com.
It would make one wonder, whether the political loss by the Sentinel’s endorsed candidate was the catalyst for the editorial staffs sudden interest in rules and the appropriateness of certain posts, and whether this new interest was intended to have a chilling effect on the expression of a certain political point of view, as the time line and sequence of events would indicate. What say you Daily Sentinel? Is your answer to be more censorship?
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, what part of the Sentinel’s statement that it was their site and they will determine the rules and/or how they administer it don’ you understand? If you don’t like your “treatment” here there are millions of others where you can play.The Sentinel makes the rules and they will decide when the bounds of civil free speech have been exceeded. I was banned for good reason and and am reinstated. If you play nice here your stuff will be accepted. The past is the past. Move on, to quote a famous and valuable organization. Personally, I’ll continue to read letters and comment if I feel the need and not be subject to deamatory sniping from the cheap seats.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 9:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, I can’t speak for the Sentinel so you’ll have to address them with your complaints. All I know is what they have told all of us who visit the site. What’s with the “cc to file” notation? If you have to revive some post you’ve made what will that do for you, or anybody? What you say here belongs to the Sentinel as to what they want to do with it. You have no recourse and they don’t want to get in the business of an appeals process, that’s clear. And I don’t blame them. It’s their playground and they’ll determine who plays here and what their demeanor should be. Move on.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I have decided to modify my position regarding Kelly Hartford’s position on Senator Obama and Second Amendment concerns.
My position now is that whatever the Daily Sentinel’s senior management position is on this subject is now my position.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr
I know not what others may do, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr,
My position on the First Amendment is now consistent with that of Patrick Henry, and I believe that I am in better company. And just as an aside, the Second Amendment protects my position on the First Amendment.
Both posts 10 and 11 should be together.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Your last comment is not “on point” and will most probably be removed shortly.
I still believe this board’s days are numbered because the Sentinel is on the auction block.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr,
Undoubtedly you are correct, but the focus of this discussion re: the Sentinel’s censorship policy seems to be shifting to the new website
http//gjresult.com. So whether my posts stay up or not here, would seem to be rapidly becoming a moot point.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
snark, in his post, quotes Senator Obama as follows: ““It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion …”
What Senator Obama was referring to was a common characteristic from which we all suffer if we are unaware we are doing it. When one perceives a danger or uncertainty, it is a normal reaction to cling tenaciously to that which is closest, or what we understand or believe we understand. The drowning man will often cling to whatever is in proximity, even if that will end in his eventual demise. That is pure emotional reaction, often brought on by fear and the resultant panic. It is part of animal nature and has absolutely nothing to do with the higher faculty in man, the capacity to reason and be logical in one’s conclusions and resultant action.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Obamas actual positions voted on, spoken on, and reported on:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
“Barack Obama on Gun Control Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.”
It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
* Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005″
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hi, I have to agree with the notion that the 2nd Amendment is a restricted right, as it mentions a well regulated militia, as its reason for existing. With the development of cell phones and the likes, I’d say we should get more regulated as a community. I had the responsibiility of checking a ditch for a month. It turned out that night was often the best time to do so. I ran into a lady though that was ready to shoot someone as an intruder. Admittedly, this may be quite understandable; and either my timing of the endeavor and/or better communication would be a help. The problem is that can arise again of a sudden as that the part of the ditch where she lives has a problem with overflow that can lead to flooding of a residence. It is not impossible, especially with a different ditch walker, that dealing with a sudden storms extremes on the system could bring even more surprises. Ideally the primary concern, one would think would be to establish a conflict resolution process, rather than ‘poach the matter in a blind assumption that desires a quick conclusion.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.