• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Comes Out Against Concealed Carry

nonothing

Well-known member
I think you know what is right and wrong, like every one else.

shooting a person who cut you off in road rage is wrong.. defending your self from some one who is going to shoot you because you cut them off is justified,.. .. not right..

self defense is justified.. anger is not.. knowing the difference means a person knows right from wrong.. not that the killing of the person is right
...

Well said.


One question,forgive my ignorance ,and I am not looking to prolong this debate,I really do not know the answer....I was under the understanding that the right to bare arms was to protect the people from their own goverment,not to use against each other?..Steve if you could clarify this for me I would appreicaite it...thank you..
 

Texan

Well-known member
nonothing said:
One question,forgive my ignorance ,and I am not looking to prolong this debate,I really do not know the answer....I was under the understanding that the right to bare arms was to protect the people from their own goverment,not to use against each other?
See if this helps clear it up for you, nonothing:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
nonothing said:
I think you know what is right and wrong, like every one else.

shooting a person who cut you off in road rage is wrong.. defending your self from some one who is going to shoot you because you cut them off is justified,.. .. not right..

self defense is justified.. anger is not.. knowing the difference means a person knows right from wrong.. not that the killing of the person is right
...

Well said.


One question,forgive my ignorance ,and I am not looking to prolong this debate,I really do not know the answer....I was under the understanding that the right to bare arms was to protect the people from their own goverment,not to use against each other?..Steve if you could clarify this for me I would appreicaite it...thank you..

a starting point..

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the Amendment II shows the need, to secure a free state.. and the right..

it is a right.. nothing is said how the people could use the right..

it is not about hunting.. sport or even forming a militia, or even self defense..

allowing that "shall not be infringe" means not even the courts can infringe on the right..

how the right is used is never mentioned..

it could be compared to the first

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

that gives US the freedom of religion, freedom of Speech and a free press, to peacably assemble (protest).. . they are rights.. none show how we can use the right..

but they are granted and shows that congress shall make no law abridging the rights..

in other words we have the right as individuals to have guns.. to speak freely, to practice our religion, to a free press, and to protest..

why we have them is not the issue.. or even how we use them. they are rights that can't be taken.. nor can we be forced to show how we intend to use the right..

the right is that we can have guns and that no law shall be made that infringes on that right..

and while I know that does not answer your question try to equate it to your right to freedom of speech.. both are rights..

but if you limit what you can say and when you can say it,.. do you still have the right?
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
I agree with Ted Nugent. I do not need any document to tell me I can protect myself and my family! DON'T TREAD ON ME!!! As a free man with out a criminal background GOD gave me the right to protect my life and liberty. What im sick of is defenseless folks gettin killed instead of killing the dang criminal. I want to have the chance to defend my kids from an intruder in our home. I deserve the opportunity to defend my wife from a rapist or robber and she should be able to do that for herself. Who decides that we don't have that right? Moron politicians who know what is best for everyone? I think not. 2nd Amendment of not, we all have the right to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones by any means neccesary. What is hard to understand about that?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
leanin' H said:
I agree with Ted Nugent. I do not need any document to tell me I can protect myself and my family! DON'T TREAD ON ME!!! As a free man with out a criminal background GOD gave me the right to protect my life and liberty. What im sick of is defenseless folks gettin killed instead of killing the dang criminal. I want to have the chance to defend my kids from an intruder in our home. I deserve the opportunity to defend my wife from a rapist or robber and she should be able to do that for herself. Who decides that we don't have that right? Moron politicians who know what is best for everyone? I think not. 2nd Amendment of not, we all have the right to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones by any means neccesary. What is hard to understand about that?

I agree, even though the constitution gives us the right to have guns. It should not even need to be in there. They do not have to have a constitution to say we have the right to eat, sleep or breathe, we do not need a piece of paper saying we have the right to protect our selves and family. That is just common sense!
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
backhoeboogie said:
Mrs.Greg said:
Its an open forum,if you just want to hold a discussion with A-plus...pm him

:) I will. But it is not just him. There are some other intelligent folks here. :shock: :shock: Actually, there are a few libs that aint half bad, except fot the lib part.
I know I'm guilty of plunking my butt down in the middle of a good discussion :oops: It happens all over the board,theres always one of "Us"

You are not one of them. I'd drag you up a chair and buy you a cup. You know how to discuss and debate and control yourself. You are intelligent and I've never seen you engage in trash.

Mostly I was referring to the Rosie types. Sometimes you wonder if there really are people in this country who are that far removed and ignorant. No logic whatsoever and everything out of their mouth comes out of the C quadrant. Oh yes, they have a brain. They just don't use the A, B or D quadrant for anything but fill.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Barack and Load
By Robert VerBruggen

Published 4/8/2008 12:08:52 AM

Much has been made of Barack Obama's audacious embrace of Second Amendment rights for rural Pennsylvanians. Since entering the national scene, the Illinois senator has kept mum about his undeniably anti-gun voting record. Now he's actively courting firearm-rights supporters.

According to the Politico Obama is "highlighting his background in constitutional law," "downplaying his voting record," and assembling a set of pro-gun Democrats' endorsements. He's even sent an e-mail to a sportsmen's group asking for their support.

There are several overlapping phenomena at work here, none of which should encourage -- or really surprise -- supporters of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

One, he's not courting pro-gun voters per se but pro-gun Democratic primary voters, a demographic that will likely recede to insignificance before the general election. Two, even if these voters aren't convinced just yet, this outreach can garner endorsements from figures the demographic does trust. Three, Obama's efforts are a change in tone, not direction, from his life of anti-gun advocacy. This is politics as usual.

The briefest glance at the road ahead reveals why Obama and Clinton have become gun-totin', NAFTA-hatin' small-town folks of late. The two are (red)neck-and-neck in the delegate count. While the superdelegates could turn down the voters' pick, the two remain locked in a fierce competition for every last ballot.

The states that haven't voted yet? Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. Plus Guam and Puerto Rico, for what they're worth.

It's not hard to see why a battle rages for the working-class white vote, and how a little gun love could pay off in the months ahead. Come November, though, Obama will need to focus on independents and disgruntled Republicans, which will require dropping the gun issue or at least presenting it through a whole new prism of deception.

After all, it's easier to run to Hillary's right than John McCain's -- on guns, at least.


IN THE SHORT TERM, will pro-gun Democrats fall for the ruse? Quite possibly. In a race with virtually no political differences between the candidates, voters have to use whatever criteria they can drum up.

Mild gestures toward a voter's values can serve as a place to hang one's hat, as can endorsements from trusted figures. Obama already has the support of Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and state representative Dan Surra -- pro-gun Democrats both.

And mild gestures these are. A serious effort to court the general pro-gun vote would require some outright flip-flops from Obama -- who, in the Politico's summary, "long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing..."

Obama can refuse to "take a stance" on the DC ban all he wants, but he had to choose sides regarding Illinois senate bill 2165, which related to similar laws in his home state. The legislation came about in response to the case of Hale DeMar, who shot a home invader, only to find himself with a $750 fine from the Village of Wilmette for owning a handgun.

The bill allowed self-defense as a legal defense against local firearms charges. Obama voted against it. In 1996 he (or maybe "a campaign aide") also indicated on an interest-group survey that he supports handgun bans. Obama has yet to change his mind about any of this publicly, or even in e-mails to sportsmen's groups.

The bottom line is that if Obama manages to dupe anyone, he'll simply take votes from another anti-gun candidate in a primary between two anti-gun candidates. Only as November approaches are non-Democrat Second Amendment supporters likely pay any attention, because only the Republican candidate has made any serious effort to earn their votes.

Unsolicited advice for Second Amendment supporting Democrats in states that have yet to hold primaries: Don't let him fool you. Flip a coin.


Robert VerBruggen is an associate editor at National Review, where he edits the Phi Beta Cons blog.


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13018
 

Texan

Well-known member
Obama and Guns: Two Different Views


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. (Editor's Note: :nod:)



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


http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsObamaGuns040708.html
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
I'm still not for concealed handguns. In fact I wonder why they even market them. I haven't seen many hunters shooting Bamb's mother with a pistol.
 

Texan

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
I'm still not for concealed handguns. In fact I wonder why they even market them. I haven't seen many hunters shooting Bamb's mother with a pistol.
You're hopeless. :lol:

If you allow yourself to be a victim, you only embolden the criminals - making it much more likely that somebody else will have to confront them.

But...it's a free country. If you're not comfortable with carrying, you certainly shouldn't. Maybe somebody who disagrees with your stance will be around in the event that you ever need him or her...
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
If I have to carry a gun wherever I go why in the world would I want to live in an area like that? I want to raise my children in a safe enviornment. If I've got to pack a gun what in the world do I expect them to do?

I think the problem with carrying concealed weapons is the fact that in fits of anger or being very frightened in some instances people that normally wouldn't do anything with a gun might due to emotion. Why have the weapon there and ready for instances like that?

I have no problem at all with people have guns in their homes. If they are locked up and owned responsibly. This year a couple times some crazies have been on the loose in this area and I've slept better knowing that their was a way to protect my children if the need arose. But to carry a gun. To have a gun with me in my car......on my body.....no I'm not ready for that yet and I'm not ready for the day of thinking half my neighbors are carring heat either.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
I think if law abiding folks who get the proper traing want to defend themselves by carrying a legal concealed weapon, they have that right. If you don't, then you sure arent forced too. But why would you be against a father protecting his family, a mother protecting her virture or a grandmother defending her life? Criminals have guns. Criminals use them to committ crimes. Why not allow the option to atleast try to let people defend themselves if the situation dictates? Prosecute criminals including those who act in anger or stupidity while carrying a concealed pistol and let the rational, normal, legal citizens decide how and when they can defend their lives and the lives of others!
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
leanin' H said:
I think if law abiding folks who get the proper traing want to defend themselves by carrying a legal concealed weapon, they have that right. If you don't, then you sure arent forced too. But why would you be against a father protecting his family, a mother protecting her virture or a grandmother defending her life? Criminals have guns. Criminals use them to committ crimes. Why not allow the option to atleast try to let people defend themselves if the situation dictates? Prosecute criminals including those who act in anger or stupidity while carrying a concealed pistol and let the rational, normal, legal citizens decide how and when they can defend their lives and the lives of others!

The problem in this being how many people are still rational when in a heated situation or feeling of having to defend oneself?

The problem also is that as with anything there are to many people that think they just automatically know all the answers or are fully trianed. Ok maybe if a person had to go through some kind of training /classes to carry a gun? But to just be able to walk around all over with a gun and for the other people not to know doesn't that put even a concealed gun carrier in the same group as the common criminal packing and nobody knowing?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
If I have to carry a gun wherever I go why in the world would I want to live in an area like that? I want to raise my children in a safe enviornment. If I've got to pack a gun what in the world do I expect them to do?

I think the problem with carrying concealed weapons is the fact that in fits of anger or being very frightened in some instances people that normally wouldn't do anything with a gun might due to emotion. Why have the weapon there and ready for instances like that?

I have no problem at all with people have guns in their homes. If they are locked up and owned responsibly. This year a couple times some crazies have been on the loose in this area and I've slept better knowing that their was a way to protect my children if the need arose. But to carry a gun. To have a gun with me in my car......on my body.....no I'm not ready for that yet and I'm not ready for the day of thinking half my neighbors are carring heat either.

You are more than welcome not to carry a gun, that is what is great about this country, you don't have to but if I want to that is my right also.

Besides do you think those crazies on the loose only attack at night in your home when you are a sleep? If a gun made you feel safe while you were sleeping wouldn't it make you feel more safe when you were awake and not at home locked in a drawer when you are at the drive up at McDonalds?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
leanin' H said:
I think if law abiding folks who get the proper traing want to defend themselves by carrying a legal concealed weapon, they have that right. If you don't, then you sure arent forced too. But why would you be against a father protecting his family, a mother protecting her virture or a grandmother defending her life? Criminals have guns. Criminals use them to committ crimes. Why not allow the option to atleast try to let people defend themselves if the situation dictates? Prosecute criminals including those who act in anger or stupidity while carrying a concealed pistol and let the rational, normal, legal citizens decide how and when they can defend their lives and the lives of others!

The problem in this being how many people are still rational when in a heated situation or feeling of having to defend oneself?

The problem also is that as with anything there are to many people that think they just automatically know all the answers or are fully trianed. Ok maybe if a person had to go through some kind of training /classes to carry a gun? But to just be able to walk around all over with a gun and for the other people not to know doesn't that put even a concealed gun carrier in the same group as the common criminal packing and nobody knowing?

You are arguing an argument that has already been proven wrong. Concealed carry is not a new concept, it is not something new on the table it has been around for a while and your paranoia has been proven false. People are safer in states that have conceal carry, done been proven!

You need to get up to speed, this debate has came and passed, there was no epidemic of killings due to conceal carry, actually crime fell.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
In Utah you are required to take a training class, be fingerprinted and have a background check before you get your permit. Do criminals have to do that? And remember that this debate isn't about you personally carrying a gun. It is about the rights of people to choose to carry. What makes me crazy are liberals that do not want to carry and forcing the rest of us to do the same. Now I don't know if you are a liberal and i'm not implying you are, but to me your arguement is flawed. You are either for gun rights or against them. Because when you start putting certain conditions on haveing or carrying a firearm, you are playing into the hands of the anti-gun radicals who want to ban everything including slingshots. If you are a law-abiding citizen with training, what is the problem? And for every wacko who runs out and gets a carry permit to be a tough guy, road-rage, little-mans-disease nutjob, how many folks get the permit and behave totally rational and normal? For every idiot, how many people defend themselves legally? Freedom equals choice. Choice brings responisbility. Responsilble choice equals options for success. Fear equals fear.
 

Cal

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
If I have to carry a gun wherever I go why in the world would I want to live in an area like that? I want to raise my children in a safe enviornment. If I've got to pack a gun what in the world do I expect them to do?

I think the problem with carrying concealed weapons is the fact that in fits of anger or being very frightened in some instances people that normally wouldn't do anything with a gun might due to emotion. Why have the weapon there and ready for instances like that?

I have no problem at all with people have guns in their homes. If they are locked up and owned responsibly. This year a couple times some crazies have been on the loose in this area and I've slept better knowing that their was a way to protect my children if the need arose. But to carry a gun. To have a gun with me in my car......on my body.....no I'm not ready for that yet and I'm not ready for the day of thinking half my neighbors are carring heat either.
Do you ever travel? Have you ever had car trouble at night? I've been broken down on the Interestate in the middle of the night before, several hundred miles from home...in a new pickup nevertheless....can't tell you how glad I was to have that little snub nose 357 under the seat.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Cal said:
CattleArmy said:
If I have to carry a gun wherever I go why in the world would I want to live in an area like that? I want to raise my children in a safe enviornment. If I've got to pack a gun what in the world do I expect them to do?

I think the problem with carrying concealed weapons is the fact that in fits of anger or being very frightened in some instances people that normally wouldn't do anything with a gun might due to emotion. Why have the weapon there and ready for instances like that?

I have no problem at all with people have guns in their homes. If they are locked up and owned responsibly. This year a couple times some crazies have been on the loose in this area and I've slept better knowing that their was a way to protect my children if the need arose. But to carry a gun. To have a gun with me in my car......on my body.....no I'm not ready for that yet and I'm not ready for the day of thinking half my neighbors are carring heat either.
Do you ever travel? Have you ever had car trouble at night? I've been broken down on the Interestate in the middle of the night before, several hundred miles from home...in a new pickup nevertheless....can't tell you how glad I was to have that little snub nose 357 under the seat.


More important is .did you have "on star" to call for assitance..?
 

quickdraw

Well-known member
In the that states that license for the right to carry a concealed weapon, classes are manditory, back ground checks, and proficency must meet standards set forth by the states and federal saftey programs.

If really interested this is a good description of what 'carry" is.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Cal said:
CattleArmy said:
If I have to carry a gun wherever I go why in the world would I want to live in an area like that? I want to raise my children in a safe enviornment. If I've got to pack a gun what in the world do I expect them to do?

I think the problem with carrying concealed weapons is the fact that in fits of anger or being very frightened in some instances people that normally wouldn't do anything with a gun might due to emotion. Why have the weapon there and ready for instances like that?

I have no problem at all with people have guns in their homes. If they are locked up and owned responsibly. This year a couple times some crazies have been on the loose in this area and I've slept better knowing that their was a way to protect my children if the need arose. But to carry a gun. To have a gun with me in my car......on my body.....no I'm not ready for that yet and I'm not ready for the day of thinking half my neighbors are carring heat either.
Do you ever travel? Have you ever had car trouble at night? I've been broken down on the Interestate in the middle of the night before, several hundred miles from home...in a new pickup nevertheless....can't tell you how glad I was to have that little snub nose 357 under the seat.


More important is .did you have "on star" to call for assitance..?



When you live out in some of the places like some of us do...." OnStar " and the other Road side Assistance programs are useless.

I know for me...the nearest RoadSide help is over 2 hrs away in Atlanta!!
So what good is that? I can have the tire changed myself or have someone come and get me by the time it would take for RSA to arrive.

Whenever I buy a new car...I refuse to have that "service" added as it's useless to me.
 

Latest posts

Top