• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

Hmm, I thought Obama was running against McCain, not Bush. Are you saying you are choosing Obama over McCain BECAUSE of Bush? And the HISTORY of Obama's voting record is not sufficient evidence about his stance on gun control?

Right, he is running against McCain. I was actually referring to what you wrote about voting for Bush, and having choice made that choice because you didn't feel you had a good choice.. But while we're on it, when has McCain tried to seperate himself from Bush in that regard?
I understand what you are saying about Obama's record here, but it looks to me like you (or the person who gave you that info) is inventing what the evidence points too. Obama was on this board, this board also happened to be among many things pushing for certain gun bans therefore Obama is pushing for gun bans. It doesn't necesarilly follow. But I don't really have that much of an issue with it, MOST Dems were pushing for such things then. Everybody thought it was a popular idea in fact..

As for showing you worse, who was president when that lame brained "assault weapon ban" was passed? Democrat or Republican? Firearms were banned SOLELY on the fact that they looked MEAN, and realistically nothing else. Historically, Democrats have as a group ALWAYS been leaning towards anti gun policy. Right now they are trying to obscure that fact with obfuscation and blatant lies. ....

Democrats were in charge then. And what has been the result of that? Look what happened to the house and senate in the next election.. Look at how they haven't touched the issue since Gore's loss. Look at how long it took for them to win again. I don't KNOW that Obama is going to leave guns alone, but it's not what he campaigned on, and it would be a stupid move since it would pretty much shut down his ability to push the agenda he did campaign on.

Do you actually know what the Second Amendment says? If so, please tell me what the word "infringed" means....... Like when used in a sentence such as "my right to obtain a firearm has been infringed....."

I do know just what it says.. and let's look up infringed.. From Websters:

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat , frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>

I will go with the first definition here.. 'To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.' So, if that's what the founding fathers meant, and your rights have been infringed, when did they come and take your guns away Rich? When in history have Americans not been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'? Even under the assault weapons ban, you could do that.

Here's a question I have asked now 3 times: What is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Do you think you should be allowed to buy a .50? Or a MK 19? How about an Abrams tank? How about a stealth bomber? A nuclear missile? Missiles loaded with weaponized Anthrax? (As long as you have passed a background check of course, we all agree on that) Unless you say yes to all of the above, than you agree that the 2nd amendment is not clear as to where the line is. Those are all arms.

Says who? Is this your "faith" kicking in gear now based on pure hope or do you have some sort of inside information that wasn't privy to the rest of us voting folks? For all we know (and what evidently a LOT of people who voted THOUGHT), things could be MUCH worse right now if those two had become president over Bush. Not that Bush is any prince, but those are the choices we had. Personally I don't see how you can substantiate such a claim at all. You can't possibly KNOW such a thing. Unless you are psychic, of course, but I kind of doubt that, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time on conversations like this, knowing the outcome....

You are right. I could never know what would have happened if history went another way. Thanks for knocking that bit of sence into me that I certainly was was lacking when I typed that, lol.

Nevertheless, we do know the way history did go with him. I just find it ironic that 'gun rights' argument enabled the most egregious erosion of the Constitution to date.
 
However, the wording of the legislation was kept open ended so that new species may be added as "needed". When the question is asked of your neighbors "Who NEEDS a corn / king / milk snake, anyway - why shouldn't they be on the list, too?", what do you think most neighbors would say? Where does it end?

I am not a Libertarian, but I agree with a lot of what Kathy has said. The camels nose in the tent is a very good analogy when talking about our government. All of the nonsense regulations started out as very reasonable and with good intentions. After a few generations, the mutation looks very little like the F1 idea. I am very confident that well intentioned regulations on guns today will be used to take them away from you tomorrow. Retic Pythons today, garter snakes tomorrow. Smokers got caught napping.
 
I didn't mean you there actually, except that your libertarian outrage at what Bush has done to the constitution was conspicuously missing..;)

I posted a Cato link pointing out incident after incident of Bush's abuse of the constitution, as well as his quote "It's a damn piece of paper!" Even more egregious is the shift of power to the executive branch under his watch. I'm no fan of the man.
 
I can't imagine that ANY libertarian (or those who lean that way) would favor much of what Bush has done. And Palin's plans to legislate "morality" according to her religious beliefs definitely does not sit well with me.

But listening to Obama's ideas just makes me feel like he will intentionally try to do anything he can to advance a socialistic agenda. Some of the promises he makes remind me way too much of what Chavez promised the poor people in Venezuela in order to get elected. I am not saying he is the same as Chavez, just that some things sound close enough to make me very nervous.

I always prefer to vote Libertarian. But I often end up voting for the "lesser of two evils" if I am really worried a lot about the "greater of two evils" (in my own opinion, of course) getting elected.
 
It's always funny how many people tend to think the president is anything more than a figurehead, and the cause of all the problems in the world.

At the end of the day it's like this.

"Those that give up freedom for security deserve neither."

Thats how things are headed quickly these days.
 
The Palin nod sealed this one for me. No way I'm voting for anyone who wants creationism taught in science classes and truly believes Earth is 6,000 years old. I *might* have been open to pulling the elephant lever until I researched her. The Dems scare me with "redistribute wealth," "health care as a right" and similar rhetoric.
I voted for Badnaric (sp?) and Harry Brown in prior presidential elections, but the Libertarians aren't thrilling me on a national level this election. And Ron Paul has a bizarre take on church and state, for a constitutional proponent. But I'm a constitutional nut, admittedly. I'll argue all day for smoker's rights, drug/prostitution legalization, gun ownership, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. ad nauseum. And the only one of those that affects me is that I own guns (and used to smoke cigarettes). I want LESS government, less taxes, less policing the world, less welfare, NO road side checkpoints and seatbelt stops, no mandatory minimum sentences, no quotas (racial or otherwise), no religious legislation, and no property taxes of any kind. I default to freedom of the individual. In my long near 40 years on this planet, I've met few folks who don't passionately disagree with me. But they are almost always on the left or the right. I don't even know how to describe my take on things, other than "nut."
 
Really? So where EXACTLY does the NRA get it's power from?
Oooh, oooh!!! I know this one! They get it from their membership!

So does the AARP; so does American Israel Public Affairs Committee; so does the American Medical Association, the AFL-CIO, the National Right To Life Committee, the American Bankers Association, the Christian Coalition, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Teamsters, blah, blah, blah. There is no distinction among any of these lobby groups in that regard; they represent the interests of their membership.

In other words, duh.

Do you think, perhaps, that the 4 MILLION members might have anything to do with that influence? None of which, as far as I know, were forced to join up at gunpoint.
Nor were the 38 MILLION members of AARP, the 10 MILLION members of the AFL-CIO, the 1.4 MILLION members of The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 250,000 members of the American Medical Association, and the 100,000 members of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee. What's your point?

Quite the opposite, really, as I believe most joined up because they have become afraid that soon there won't be the possibility for them to be on the non-business end of a gun without having an organization such as the NRA to help US keep our gun rights.
Again, this is no different than ANY member of a special interest group. They join and seek representation for the protection of said special interests.

At issue then, is the validity of that fear of losing ownership/control of whatever special interest with which one has aligned.

And at every POTUS election cycle since 2000, I've heard Mr. LaPierre proclaim that the current candidate with a (D) next to their name is THE GREATEST AND WORST THREAT TO OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I paid attention in 2000; eight years and two identical claims later, its meaning and validity have paled.

I only own a shabby little Browning BPS, for use afield with the dog and the occasional clay birds. I don't fear my 2nd Amendment rights being usurped by Senator Obama (matter of fact, he's been endorsed by the President of the American Hunters And Shooters Association) nor did I, after thorough research, from Senators Kerry or Gore.

So if anyone has a problem with the NRA, their REAL problem is with the will of the MEMBERS of that organization.
This is a COMPLETE LOGICAL FALLACY. "All 4 MILLION of us are in complete agreement with every aspect of gun ownership, therefore, to oppose our organization is to oppose our individual members."

I'll grant that the MAJORITY of members will concur on a MAJORITY of a set of particular issues relevant to "the cause", be it gun rights, organized labor, American policy to Israel, whatever - these are codified into an agenda to represent the "will" of a MAJORITY.

But complete and abject unanimity? I think not.

Thus, "opponents" to a cause would have an issue with the AGENDA, AND NOT THE MEMBERSHIP.

And I certainly DO hope that politicians will pay close attention to an organization that can strongly influence 4 MILLION votes in US elections. Votes from the MEMBERS of that organization that has hired lobbyists to bring that message home to our elected "representatives".....
Call me an idealist, but those "representatives" are 535 men and women, hired by us on a temporary basis to speak for the MAJORITY of their 305 MILLION employers/constituents.


Dale
 
Right, he is running against McCain. I was actually referring to what you wrote about voting for Bush, and having choice made that choice because you didn't feel you had a good choice.. But while we're on it, when has McCain tried to seperate himself from Bush in that regard?
I understand what you are saying about Obama's record here, but it looks to me like you (or the person who gave you that info) is inventing what the evidence points too. Obama was on this board, this board also happened to be among many things pushing for certain gun bans therefore Obama is pushing for gun bans. It doesn't necesarilly follow. But I don't really have that much of an issue with it, MOST Dems were pushing for such things then. Everybody thought it was a popular idea in fact..

Sorry, you need to read that article again, perhaps a little CLOSER this time...

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.
**emphasis added**

Are you REALLY suggesting that a DIRECTOR was blind or otherwise unsupportive of that foundation's efforts to push for the judicial gutting of the Second Amendment? That a DIRECTOR was not DIRECTING the foundation's aims and goals? Well in my opinion, either he WAS directing those aims or goals, or he was NOT a very capable DIRECTOR at all, now was he? So which is worse for a prospective president of the Unitied States?

Certainly his history seems to support this sort of stance in relation to the Second Amendment, I believe..

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
**Commentary: Oh yeah, a STAFFER came up with those answers without conferring with Mr. Obama. I would put this right along with an answer of the type "the dog ate the answer sheet."

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

** Commentary: Of course, if ALL the guns are banned, then ALL guns would be illegal, therefore fitting the criteria that Obama apparently supports.

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

** Commentary: Answer the question, please..... WOULD you do that if you COULD?

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

**Commentary: Anyone thinking of that word "infringed" right now?

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

**Commentary: Hmm, but concealed carry for the rest of us is a no-no?

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

**Commentary: Yes, this quote is rather old, but leopards just don't lose their spots on demand.


Democrats were in charge then. And what has been the result of that? Look what happened to the house and senate in the next election.. Look at how they haven't touched the issue since Gore's loss. Look at how long it took for them to win again. I don't KNOW that Obama is going to leave guns alone, but it's not what he campaigned on, and it would be a stupid move since it would pretty much shut down his ability to push the agenda he did campaign on.

Check the dates in the ABOVE quotes, please..... The reason he isn't using it as a campaign issue is because it is a live wire issue. But investigating his past history should leave little doubt about what he likely THINKS about the gun issue.


I do know just what it says.. and let's look up infringed.. From Websters:

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2obsolete : defeat , frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon

I will go with the first definition here.. 'To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.' So, if that's what the founding fathers meant, and your rights have been infringed, when did they come and take your guns away Rich? When in history have Americans not been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'? Even under the assault weapons ban, you could do that.

"Infringing" not only refers to the taking away of currently owned private property (in relation to firearms), it also means a restriction in availability in the form of permits (CCW and NICS, for instance), federal regulations (I cannot LEGALLY travel to, say, Kentucky and buy a gun while I am there), the reduction in viable sources both at the retail level and manufacturer's level (reducing the number of FFLs in any given area will cause a price increase in the available merchandise because of reduced competition. Further there have already been a number of manufacturers who have gone out of business because of the constant onslaught of regulations, laws, frivolous lawsuits, and just plain red tape that made their cost of doing business more than they, as a COMPANY, could withstand.)

Those are ALL infringments upon my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as implicit in this right is also the fair and easy ability to be able to PROCURE those arms to be able to keep and bear them.

Here's a question I have asked now 3 times: What is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Do you think you should be allowed to buy a .50? Or a MK 19? How about an Abrams tank? How about a stealth bomber? A nuclear missile? Missiles loaded with weaponized Anthrax? (As long as you have passed a background check of course, we all agree on that) Unless you say yes to all of the above, than you agree that the 2nd amendment is not clear as to where the line is. Those are all arms.

Yes, they are. And my stance is that if the government is allowed to have them, then so should we. Actually I believe I did address this earlier. But in any event, the main PURPOSE of the Second Amendment was to ease some of the states' fears that the new government being created could escape the bonds of the Consitution and turn on the people who that document made it's master. The Second Amendment was the teeth behind the bark of the other amendments. To state that allowing the government to have weaponry far and above in capability as to what the population would be allowed to have flies completely in the face of that PURPOSE for which the Second Amendment was placed there. No, I really don't LIKE to think that some people I have know would have access to that sort of weaponry, but the penalty for MY having those rights is that they must have them as well. Which I am willing to accept.

You are right. I could never know what would have happened if history went another way. Thanks for knocking that bit of sence into me that I certainly was was lacking when I typed that, lol.

Nevertheless, we do know the way history did go with him. I just find it ironic that 'gun rights' argument enabled the most egregious erosion of the Constitution to date.

As I mentioned before, no, I am not all that fond of George Bush, and I do wish better options had been presented to us. A situation, unfortunately, which seems to be the case each and every election, as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
Oooh, oooh!!! I know this one! They get it from their membership!

So does the AARP; so does American Israel Public Affairs Committee; so does the American Medical Association, the AFL-CIO, the National Right To Life Committee, the American Bankers Association, the Christian Coalition, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Teamsters, blah, blah, blah. There is no distinction among any of these lobby groups in that regard; they represent the interests of their membership.

In other words, duh.

Nor were the 38 MILLION members of AARP, the 10 MILLION members of the AFL-CIO, the 1.4 MILLION members of The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 250,000 members of the American Medical Association, and the 100,000 members of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee. What's your point?

The point was to counter your point. Thank you for the support....

Again, this is no different than ANY member of a special interest group. They join and seek representation for the protection of said special interests.

At issue then, is the validity of that fear of losing ownership/control of whatever special interest with which one has aligned.

And at every POTUS election cycle since 2000, I've heard Mr. LaPierre proclaim that the current candidate with a (D) next to their name is THE GREATEST AND WORST THREAT TO OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I paid attention in 2000; eight years and two identical claims later, its meaning and validity have paled.

Oh, I heartily agree with this. So is this the crying of "WOLF" too many times, or are the elections really REALLY getting to be that problematical when our freedoms are at stake? Anyone with a crystal ball handy?

I only own a shabby little Browning BPS, for use afield with the dog and the occasional clay birds. I don't fear my 2nd Amendment rights being usurped by Senator Obama (matter of fact, he's been endorsed by the President of the American Hunters And Shooters Association) nor did I, after thorough research, from Senators Kerry or Gore.

Hmm, that is kind of like a wolf endorsing the fox to guard the henhouse, I believe....

Wikipedia entry for American Hunters and Shooters Association

The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is an organization presenting itself as an alternative to the National Rifle Association, the most prominent Second Amendment advocacy group in the United States. The AHSA bills itself as a more moderate, common-sense advocacy organization. Most AHSA founders are associated with the Brady Campaign, and it supports measures such as registration and restrictions on widely-owned semi-automatic firearms. It has thus gained the reputation as a gun control advocacy organization masquerading as a pro-gun group,[1] and in its own statements indicates that it was founded to more effectively promote the gun-control efforts of the Brady Campaign.[2] Its critics claim that AHSA is a front organization aimed at dividing gun owners by pointing to AHSA members' bias against private ownership of the most popular modern sporting firearms, and note AHSA leaders have donated money to gun control groups[3] and maintained ties to individuals and organizations who advocate gun control.[4] Despite the similarity in name, AHSA has no ties to the field marksmanship promoting organization, the Hunter's Shooting Association (HSA).

The leaders of the AHSA are:[10]
  • Ray Schoenke, founding president [11] A former football player for the Washington Redskins, Schoenke ran for Governor of Maryland as a Democrat and has given "millions" to Democratic politicians and causes according to a January 19, 1998 Washington Post article.[12] Among the groups that Schoenke has donated to are two that actively lobby to ban firearms: Handgun Control, Inc.[13][14] and America Coming Together. Schoenke was on the Governor's Commission on Gun Violence in 1996.
  • Bob Ricker, executive director [15]
  • Jon Rosenthal, a real estate mogul and Founder of Stop Handgun Violence. Stop Handgun Violence is credited with lobbying and subsequently helping to pass the licensing and registration system in place in the state of Massachusetts.
  • Joseph J. Vince, Jr., a member of the Board of Directors is the former chief of the BATF's crime guns analysis branch. Currently, he is a principal of Crime Gun Solutions. HCI has hired Crime Gun Solutions in order to support numerous gun control laws,[16][17] to support HCI's lawsuits against firearm dealers[18] and he was a signer on a letter submitted to Congress opposing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[19]
  • Jody Powell, co-chairman of the AHSA Advisory Board
  • A. Austin Dorr, co-chairman of the AHSA Advisory Board

Endorsement by the Brady Campaign
Paul Helmke, the President of the Brady Campaign, says of the AHSA, "I see our issues as complementary to theirs".[25]
**Commentary: In case anyone has forgotten, the "Brady Campaign" used to be known as Handgun Control, Inc.. The FULL title is really "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"
[/quote]

This is a COMPLETE LOGICAL FALLACY. "All 4 MILLION of us are in complete agreement with every aspect of gun ownership, therefore, to oppose our organization is to oppose our individual members."

I'll grant that the MAJORITY of members will concur on a MAJORITY of a set of particular issues relevant to "the cause", be it gun rights, organized labor, American policy to Israel, whatever - these are codified into an agenda to represent the "will" of a MAJORITY.

But complete and abject unanimity? I think not.

Certainly NOT! Personally I believe that the NRA is way too SOFT on their positions. And MANY people I have talked to have left the NRA or not become a member because they believe this as well. But I believe, indeed, that they do speak for not only a majority of their MEMBERS, but also quite a few people who are NOT members, yet find their guidance and fronting for our rights to be worth supporting in spirit if not always financially.

Thus, "opponents" to a cause would have an issue with the AGENDA, AND NOT THE MEMBERSHIP.

Well that depends. How can their be an agenda without the support of the membership? Certainly if the NRA were way out of sync with the wishes of their membership, then when membership renewal came around, the renewals would end. The last time I heard a number relating to the membership level of the NRA it was right around three million. So in the intervening years, even with the possibility that some members have left in disgruntlement, the ranks have still swelled substantially up to FOUR MILLION. Will all the members vote in lockstep with what the NRA recommends? Of course not. But certainly a large enough proportion of them for the prospective candidates to not only pay attention to what that lobbying voice says it's members want, but in many cases to try like the dickens to keep their TRUE motives unknown until after the ballots are all counted.

Call me an idealist, but those "representatives" are 535 men and women, hired by us on a temporary basis to speak for the MAJORITY of their 305 MILLION employers/constituents.


Dale

Within reason, of course. We are NOT a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Even if the majority wants their representative to enact legislation that is unconstitutional I would hope that the representative would uphold his or her OATH of OFFICE (assuming they still do that in this day and age), and support and protect the United Constitution, regardless. If, in fact, the greater majority of the people of this country wish to violate the US Constitution, then the LEGAL method of doing so is via the amendment process. Not (as is apparently often done) to pass unconstitutional laws anyway, figuring that most people will not have the financial wherewithal to fight it all the way up to the Supreme Court. And perhaps the short term goal was met anyway, so the damage will be done before it can be "fixed" in court.
 
Well, to kind of drift away from the gun rights issue...

Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:02 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman


With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: “I told you so.”


Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.


Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in twelve other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.


Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.


“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.


In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.


In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their name was on the list of Obama supporters.


In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party alleging massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.


In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn’t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine, where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.


Obama’s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.


Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Hillary Clinton would be the Democrats’ nominee running against John McCain.


Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, “there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud,” Long said.


Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.


ACORN involvement


The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,00 for “voter turnout” work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on “staging, sound and light” and “advance work.”


State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter-registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of “Mickey Mouse,” and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice — once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.


A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name “Princess Nudelman” in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, “This person is a dead fish."


ACORN was known for its “intimidation tactics,” said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. who has researched Obama’s long-standing ties to the group.


Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are now believed to be illegitimate.


Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.


Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.


“From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama,” he said.


That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.


“My mind began to feel victory for my lady,’ he said. “THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section,” he said.


Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.


After it was over, “a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back” to Illinois, Jeff said.


Obama’s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden — today his running mate, then his rival — pointed it out at the time.


At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden “said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ‘Hello Iowa!’ and then turned to Barack’s crowd and shouted, ‘and Hello Chicago!’” another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.


Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.


Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out “i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals” to students and people in homeless shelters,” according to eyewitness reports collected by Dr. Long.


In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after Obama campaign workers recruited them.


2,000 complaints in Texas


In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year’s election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho and Texas. “But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result,” Dr. Long told Newsmax. “The others didn’t count the primary at all, calling it a ‘beauty contest.’”


Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.


“There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses,” Long said. “Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don’t like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can’t go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can’t go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters,” she said.


But Obama’s victories in the caucuses weren’t the result of better organization, Long insists. “It was fraud.”


In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.


The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota.


A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33. But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.


“No poll is that far off,” Long told Newsmax.


Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.


In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-to-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.


In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.


This year’s primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.


“Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates,” said Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.


In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama’s strong-arm tactics.


One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston’s new film, “We Will Not Be Silenced,” says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an on-ine video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. “People called me a whore and a skank,” she said.


John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, "Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud.”


Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. “You’re supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out — this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud.”


Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.


“I couldn’t believe this was happening,” one woman said in the film. “I thought this only happened in Third World countries.”


On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media largely ignored.


“The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,” she wrote. “This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.”


She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.


The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that “the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus,” she wrote.


“There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules,” she added.


But no one seemed to care.


Despite Clinton’s three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary — 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent — Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38 to 29 advantage in delegates.


Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.


When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, “I could see that something was wrong,” Hayes said.


Hayes said she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.


“Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day.” And yet, their votes were counted.


In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself “Pacific John” described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.


“On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see,” he wrote.


“We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 a.m.”


The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses — and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination — is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the November 4 presidential election, which is already under way.


It’s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.


NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama’s first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.


“Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,” Fletcher wrote.


Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate “was even more curious,” conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.


Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.


Then in the general election, “lightning struck again,” Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.


Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican Party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.


“Mr. Obama’s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,” Blankley wrote, while “the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.”


Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_voter_fraud/2008/10/26/144303.html
 
a wise man once said something to the effect that the government should fear its people, not the other way around.

Several times throughout history governments have disarmed their civilians... it is then when the people realize that they should not have placed so much trust in their government.

Also... just for kicks... check out what the government did in Lousiana and surrounding areas after katrina... first thing on the list was taking all firearms away from the law abiding people... people defending their family and property... they stripped their firearms from them and in some cases arrested them.

WOW


watch America... Freedom to Fascism...
 
I'm not about to post where I stand on all this, I alienate enough people as it is.
But as much as we ALL love Rich, some of us will argue with him upon occasion....but NOBODY EVER argues with Kathy! :)
 
Yes, they are. And my stance is that if the government is allowed to have them, then so should we. Actually I believe I did address this earlier. But in any event, the main PURPOSE of the Second Amendment was to ease some of the states' fears that the new government being created could escape the bonds of the Consitution and turn on the people who that document made it's master. The Second Amendment was the teeth behind the bark of the other amendments. To state that allowing the government to have weaponry far and above in capability as to what the population would be allowed to have flies completely in the face of that PURPOSE for which the Second Amendment was placed there. No, I really don't LIKE to think that some people I have know would have access to that sort of weaponry, but the penalty for MY having those rights is that they must have them as well. Which I am willing to accept.

I think we just fundamentally disagree than. When I say you have always had the right to bear arms, I mean right down to your last single action revolver or your last musket, you still have it. I don't think we should take it that far, but if we went the way you are suggesting, destruction is a guarantee. I don't think any of us would doubt that there are people that can pass a background check and yet would have no qualms about detonating explosives or releasing weaponized anthrax (which is pretty inexpensive technology) in a NYC subway. If someone would argue that nobody with that sort of eagerness to kill mass amounts of Americans would pass a background check, I'd have to say, it's strange where the trust in our government comes and where it goes..

With your definition and your interpretation, I readily admit, I'm 'antigun' LOL. Though I certainly don't see things quite the same way you do.
 
I think this is a great debate! I think everyone who has posted thus far has contributed valuable information. It hasn't gone negative and I love that! I have learned a few things I didn't know before, from this debate so far. I think it's important to listen to both sides of a debate. Even if you don't change your stand on something you can always walk away with more knowledge by listening to both sides.

Everyone is passionate about different things, wether it's guns, taxes, business, war, jobs, corn snakes ect. If you vote for a candidate based on your passion, what ever it may be, you make this country a better place. I think that's what this melting pot of a country is all about. I don't think it's fair to look down on someone for voting based on guns, religion, taxes, reptiles even.

I think Dale brings up a great point about being a culture of fear. Fear is a great marketing tool, that's for sure. Even though I think that fear marketing is over done most the time, I also think fear on your back burner isn't so bad sometimes. "Use Crest toothpaste or your teeth will rot" is a mild version of "fear" marketing. You could look at statistics and say modern day dental health is great compared to a generation ago and have no fear. I wish some of my co-workers had a healthy fear of rotten teeth, cause I get sick of looking at their black caramel teeth sometimes. lol

I live in a small farm town. You could say the "odds are" I am pretty safe here in this town, because we don't have gangs or much crime. With that said I had a buddy of mine stabbed in the heart and killed by his neighbor. All over loud music. I was at a fourth of July party about 12 years ago. A car pulled up. Three young men got out with automatic guns and lit the party up. Some lame brain at the party had ripped them off. I remember thinking in both instances "How could this happen in this small town". Odds were against it.

Although second amendment rights are important to me I am not voting based on second amendment. I am in the automotive manufacturing business, and it has been devastated by these free trade agreements. My company had a plant in Jackson that they shut down last year even though it was making 23% profit. Factory workers are loosing wages, benefit and jobs year after year. I don't want to hijack the 2nd amendment debate so I'll just say I'm voting for Obama cause he said he'll do something about unfair trade. That's what puts food on my table.
 
I think we just fundamentally disagree than. When I say you have always had the right to bear arms, I mean right down to your last single action revolver or your last musket, you still have it. I don't think we should take it that far, but if we went the way you are suggesting, destruction is a guarantee. I don't think any of us would doubt that there are people that can pass a background check and yet would have no qualms about detonating explosives or releasing weaponized anthrax (which is pretty inexpensive technology) in a NYC subway. If someone would argue that nobody with that sort of eagerness to kill mass amounts of Americans would pass a background check, I'd have to say, it's strange where the trust in our government comes and where it goes..

With your definition and your interpretation, I readily admit, I'm 'antigun' LOL. Though I certainly don't see things quite the same way you do.


I see..... And I have to assume that the basis of your disagreement is that the founders and creators of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could not POSSIBLY have been able to foresee the destructiveness of current weaponry. So the intent and letter of the Second Amendment must therefore be ignored because of that lack of foresight. Does that sound close to your reasoning? That the Second Amendment is obsolete because of the advances in technology, regardless of the purpose it was placed there?

Well tell me then, is the First Amendment then as equally nulled and voided because of the advances of technology today compared to when that Amendment was penned to paper?

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.

When the concept of long distance communication was basically a letter to be delivered via a rider on a horse to hand deliver the message to a recipient, and the audience any single person would hope to reach at a single verbalizing of his or her thoughts would be the number of people that could fit into a courtyard, my how things have changed now. Certainly the crafters of that amendment couldn't have foreseen the development of television, radio, telephone, nor the internet. So in a like fashion, is the letter and intent of the First Amendment concerning freedom of speech and press as obsolete as you are apparently arguing that the Second Amendment should be?

To carry this even further, is a claim apparently being made here that the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights should be completely neutered in favor of "reasonable" restrictions being placed by the very entity it was designed to control and keep in check? That the founders of this country in creating those documents were certainly smart enough to realize the danger of what they were producing for the American people, and tried their best to put in protections, yet we have surpassed the human nature they feared and there is now no possibility at all that the people who run the government might someday really NOT have our best interests at heart with the decisions they make concerning us? You would be willing to accept the "reasonable restrictions on the arms we can "keep and bear" might only apply to the ancient weaponry of the late 1700s while the government has the full arsenal of current and future technology at their disposal, for whatever purposes they may wish to use them for? With us not having any CHOICE in what their decisions might be?

The road to hell is most certainly paved with good intentions, it seems. And certainly people with evil intent will use (and have used) this to their advantage when dealing with the population. Apparently many people will willingly give up some measure of their freedom as long as it appears to guarantee them a slight bit more security from potential harm. A poor tradeoff, at best, in my opinion. As once you have lost your freedom, your security is nothing more then a tenuous privilege granted by those who now control you.
 
If our choice is to apply our present constitution and rights thereby granted/guaranteed to today's world. Or to choose that today's politicians can decide what's best for us. I choose Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Penn, Chase, etc, etc, etc over Obama, McCain, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Graham, Feinstein, Specter, etc, etc, etc every day of the week and twice on Tuesday.

I think until there are major changes in our political structure the last thing we need is today's politicians, that seem to have little respect for each other or the wishes of the people they represent, to make radical changes to a guiding document that has conducted this country for hundreds of years.

Just my opinion, in today's market its worth less than $.02.
 
You pretty much have me dead on with that Rich.. There is no acceptable situation to me where I can fathom allowing anyone but the government to have nuclear weapons. I wouldn't even go that far, I don't think any civilian has any business with a MK19.. I don't think the 2nd Amendment says anything but the right to bear arms. Well you have some arms don't you? I do too. It doesn't say what arms, nor could it possibly mean arms that hadn't been invented yet, arms that are 'science fiction' destructive. Common sense tells us they meant muskets and pistols, and rifles and pistols are the modern equivalent.
If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from our government, and to check their power, isn't joining the National Guard an acceptable way to exercise that? I mean, you and your friends with as much weaponry as you can get together won't stand a chance against a brigade of the US Army Rich. No offense is meant by that, but in other words even YOUR interpretation can't possibly do what the 2nd amendment 'was meant to do', in these times. So what point is there for us to risk the domestic terrorist getting ahold of hand grenades?? Wouldn't a more likely scenario of defense be to be involved in your state's guard? In the civil war, all the units that fought each other came out of the same Army. If it ever came to something like that, you aren't likely to be the only one to stand up against the feds..

As to the 1st Amendment, I don't believe there is a situation that even comes close to nuclear free speech in terms of real danger. I'm all ears if you have an example.

I think the gun rights we have now (Federally- I'm not happy with California's where essentially pistol grips and flash suppressors are considered deadly, that's stupid) are pretty much right on. I don't see our next President (either candidate actually) changing them either way. I could be wrong, but they aren't saying they want to, if they are lying, that remains to be seen, I guess.

By the way- OT, but here's my newest! Just rack grade from the CMP, but much nicer than I would have expected.. I took it to an indoor range last week and it functions great! Can't wait to try it at an outdoor range. I looked up the serial number, this one would have been made in 1942 if I'm not mistaken. Also according to the CMP these have been given back to 'us' from the Greek Army. What a history it must have had.. (Or parts of it maybe, lol)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top