Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: Is Obama Anti-Gun, Or Anti-Gun Control?

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 17, 2010

Discussion Topic: Is Obama Anti-Gun, Or Anti-Gun Control?

By Dave Hurteau

From the Chicago Tribune:

Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama’s presidential race, few were more
certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. . . .

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.
. . .

[The president] has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton — and allowed to expire in 2004 — has no visible place on Obama's agenda.


Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced. . .

Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand. . . . It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Be sure to check out the full article and tell us your reaction.

Comments (76)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Sharkfin wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I don't care why he's not messing with them just as long as he doesn't. I doubt he'll have a chance to. I am betting on Obama being a one and done president. After a year he's got people on both sides pretty unhappy.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Obama was more worried about a health care bill than he was creating jobs for the millions of laid off citizens of this country, with all the popularity he's received I really feel he has zero intrest in changing gun laws. Besides he would have a hard time getting a tax cut through congress and the senate for the rest of his one term tenure!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from CaptChuck57 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Gun control was never one of Obama's campaign platforms so it should come as no surprise that he's done nothing. Conservatives just cooked that up because he's on the other side so he must automatically be anti-gun. Just another way for Republicans to get more votes, but don't be fooled Democrats play this game too.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from NolanOsborne wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

:)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from stick500 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

the NRA plays gun owners like a fiddle every election year- they need a big bad boogyman to get all the hunters to cough up major $s to keep the org. afloat- meanwhile, many of the elected GOP do just the opposite of what is good for fish and wildlife populations and no one seems to notice, though F&S gets it right quite often!

+15 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

The NRA wasn't "crying wolf". Obama had anti-gun history in the Illinois Senate. True, he never made gun legislation part of his campaign but he also knew that many of his congressional supporters were Blue Dog Democrats who had been elected as pro 2A. Also, he had other priorities such as health care.
I continue to be amazed at how ineffective this president is. This includes legislation that hasn't passed and legislation that has passed but doesn't accomplish any intended goals.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from mutt wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I have said this for a long time that he has more to worry about than gun control.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

When our severely under experienced president went from his perfect little liberal world in Chicago to the Presidency in DC he found out that the vast majority of Americans are not anything like the people who elected him to the Senate. He found out very quickly that most Americans Love guns and become very angry if they even think that there is a chance someone is going to mess with their guns. He does have an anti gun history but you are correct about him not doing anything about it now because if he did that would be just shear stupidity. I trust Obama about as much as I would trust a grizzly.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Yoop it's good to see your posts again and if you have been here lately then I'm sorry I missed you.
I am of the same opinion of the Chicago Tribune columnist. Obama is a saavy politician. I think he understands and has taken notice that gun control is not the driving issue it once was during the 80's and 90's. The fact that the 1994 elections in which the Republicans ruled the house for the first time in 40 years came after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was no mere coincidence. I remember that the 1994 ban passed by only one vote. I'll wager that the recent surge in firearm purchases and attendant shortage of ammunition has not escaped his notice either.
It will be up to us to keep the pro-gun ball rolling by introducing more people to the shooting sports and maintaining a positive image of firearm ownership.
For those of you who noticed, concerning the recent shooting in Alabama, the press is focusing on "how this possibly violent person was overlooked for so long" as opposed to "look what someone has done with a gun!"
Maybe we can eventually attain the place where those who want to prohibit firearm ownership become the fringe minority like groups such as PETA.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

For an ineffective president, he has spent a hell of a lot of money that we don't have but our children and grandchildren will be responsible for. In my so not humble opinion, I believe his "plan" was to get the stimulus through, the budget, healthecare and then cap and trade. After that was done he would have time for those "who cling to religion and guns". Luckily, Being a president is harder than running to be one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from finnyk wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Let's be honest here. The man is a politician. His position on gun rights and gun control will be controlled by a public opinion poll paid for by his backers. The pollsters will then go out and poll their "representative sample of Americans" (to read, Obama's backers) and THEY will determine his approach. He will do what he thinks is expedient and in the best interests of maintaining a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate in 2010. THEN he will do what is in the best interests of getting re-elected in 2012. If those two positions differ, he will have some type of explanation that people will or won't buy.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

His history in Illinois is anti-gun. He could do nothing about gun control regulation and still bring it all down through the U.N.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark J wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

This is why I don't pay much attention to people who hype a Presidential candidates as anti-gun nuts who are going to take all our guns away. Like finnyk said, at the end of the day they are all politicians. And there is nothing politically intelligent about launching a strong anti-gun campaign, especially when there are so many more important issues at hand. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in America believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms. It seems to me that they would lose a lot more supporters than they would gain.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

"He could do nothing about gun control regulation and still bring it all down through the U.N."

Actually, no, he can't.
1. Assuming the US voted in favor of a resolution for world firearms control in the UN Assembly, it would have no force of law in the US, because a UN Assembly vote is not a treaty ratified by the US Senate.

2. Assuming the US Senate were to ratify such a treaty, it would have the same force of law as a bill passed in both houses of congress and signed by the president. The USSJC could overturn such a law on a Constitutional challenge and the same could be done to any treaty.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from cas0905 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

gun control is not going to help anything as far as criminal activities. if you think about it the people that gun control would affect are only the people that get their guns legally, who for the most part arent the problem. The thugs and criminals will still be able to get guns illegally and they are the real problem, not bubba with his rifle shooting deer

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ricefarm wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Obama got himself tied up with his first priority which was taking over the health care industry. He is a product of Chicago politics, and for some reason the godfather of Chicago politicians, Mayor for life Richard M Daley, doesn't think any of us "citizens" should be allowed to own guns. Obama himself has no real soul, he just promotes what he thinks will make him popular and gun control is going to be a ways down his priority list. Get him out of office in 2012 and he will never come close to getting far enough down his list to get to us disillustioned rednecks clinging to our guns and religion.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

who knows he flip flops more than a landed fish

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from J4huntfish wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

taking away guns wont help anything it will just cause more problems. if you take away guns then you might just take away everthing else because anthing can be a weapon. your voice can be a weapon too, heres how to say it obama is a load of monkey crap. besides on anthing can be a weapon. have you seen what jail inmates can make they make shanks out of news papers

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Mike - thanks for the clarification. I will have to look into that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

His voting record is anti-gun, definitely, but he's smart enough to leave the issue alone now that the American people are actually keeping an eye on him. He's lost enough support already (down 20+ percentage points since he was elected) without stirring the hornet's nest of gun control.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Mike - It's been a hard sleepless week. Yes, you are right, but if the Senate does ratify the treaty under Obama's influence (which is waning, I hope) and it gets through the court, which he is stacking, it could happen. Backdoor way of approaching it while he smirks.

What I'm still trying to figure out is what happens to international gun trade if ratified by other countries that build and supply us with guns. Any thoughts?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from IowaGuy wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Field Notes:

Thanks for pointing out some realities and facts rather than slinging labels around.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from IowaGuy wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Stick500, good point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I told you it was right wing hype. Obama said "I will do nothing to interfere with American Sporting traditions". He has signed pro gun legislation even! I know the "cons" won't let up on him, 'cause they are spoilsports, but at least some people are realizing that the hype is just that.
However one of the few things still manufactured here is firearms, the hype does sell guns, which is good for the economy, as people always prefer selected lies over uncomfortable truth.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Justin D wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Hello!! Look at his history before he was pres- He is anti gun. and anti- American. Read his two books! It will shock you!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I'm with Justin. You can't trust any politician, you need to look at their voting record (meager as Obama's is) to discern what they really think.

And Bella, you're the one who's against people buying AR15's, so obviously your definition of "gun control" is different from most other sportsmen.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

His momma didn't raise no fool?
Even the author of the article states,

"Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a "canny politician" in the White House: He doesn't have to."

At this point in time in his Presidential, four year trial and grace period, he would be committing political suicide to say or do anything against the Second Ammendment.If he even thought about it,"out loud," people would march on Washington, gun in hand, creating the biggest Revolution this country has ever seen in our life time.

The real question is,"why hasn't he done something in regards to our Second Ammendment rights?"

Steve Chapman the author,who is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman, says it's because Obama believes there is something in it for him and the rest of the democrats.

"Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control."

By the way the author used the words,"canny politician" in describing the President.
The orgin of this word is of Scottish and northern England formation from can in its sense of "know how to." Often used superciliously of Scots by their southern neighbors, implying "thrift and an eye to the main chance."

Bipartisanship?

That ... ship is still in the harbor, burned by the people who elected this "canny politician!"

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

"Yes, you are right, but if the Senate does ratify the treaty under Obama's influence (which is waning, I hope) and it gets through the court, which he is stacking, it could happen. Backdoor way of approaching it while he smirks."

True enough. I just don't think there's much hope of anything like a treaty calling for that sort of thing ever making it through the senate. There's alot of Dems on the side of the 2nd Amendment, to say nothing of universal opposition to Handgun Control Inc in the GOP.

"What I'm still trying to figure out is what happens to international gun trade if ratified by other countries that build and supply us with guns. Any thoughts?"

Well, based on what happened to Iraq under "sanctions" and the level of cooperation (none) that we get from Russia and China (both of whom are big weapons exporters), I'd say that European exports will be hurt and the demand will be filled by Russia and China.

Working from their, I'd guess that if anyone took such a UN resolution seriously (which people rarely if ever do), it might mean that some of the high-end European firearms manufacturers would relocate to countries that don't give a toot about UN resolutions. They might even relocate to the USA. I think it'd be pretty cool if Uberti or Browning would relocate to Arizona, although I recognize that it's a pipe dream.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Also please don't mistake my use of "hope" of such a treaty meaning that I hope for it. I was thinking of the "hope of an ice cube in hades" rhetorical way when I wrote that. I dislike every one of these Globalist bureaucracies.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clamp wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

All you have to do is look at 1994 to see why they (the dems) dont go after the citizens guns. They know now that when they do that they lose.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shotgunlou wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I took a few minutes to read some of this guys other columns and found that any mention of Barack Hussein Obama was something like this..."well he's really not that bad of a guy. He hasnt done anything really bad...yet." This guy says he's a gun owner and supports the 2A but he has his face so far up Fobama's ass that his breath will smell like s#!t for the rest of his life.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from willowa wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

If BHO is not anti gun (as his record from Ill. certainly says he is), why does he support 'Hillary's' signing on for the UN 'arms [read 'small arms'] world wide gun control? And, lest anyone think that would effect only everyone else, witness the 'Pres's' changing of Exectutive Order #12425 (originally Ronald Reagan's) to give INTERPOL diplomatic immunity! They can operate freely in the US: no miranda, no probable cause, their offices cannot be searched, nor can they be required to give up any information, records, etc., unless they agree to do so. One more step to 'one world' gov't. And, cosidering how the rest of the world thinks on private gun ownership, not a good sign at all.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Plus, look at the source. It's the Chicago Tribune, a liberal paper written in Liberal Town, USA. Not exactly an unbiased source here...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

If anybody thinks that Obama is anywhere close to "pro 2nd" than you have another thing coming. He has a record that proves he is not a gun supporter if any of the libs would care to look. I don't believe that I have ever met one socialist that is "pro 2nd".

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

It would seem we have some Obama lovers on this site.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tunadave wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I'll hazard a radical thought. From someone who hasn't seen but a few select Democrats who I could begin to trust, and has been severely disappointed by the antics of most Republicans for the last several years, let's try this. I was talking with a good friend the other day about the general failure of the government in Washington. What if we were to throw ALL of them out and replace them with 500+ random people off the street? The only disadvantage I can see is that they wouldn't have had the opportunity to serve a prior term in the finishing school for corruption, A.K.A. Congress, to hone their pandering skills. They might even actually care about what their constituents want! Then, after four years, allow the previously deposed congressional members a chance to run against the new incumbents. I wonder how many would be returned to office? Me, I can't wait for November.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

ALL CONTROL!

He wants to be just like Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías !!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Obama has been an economic disaster. He'll now raise taxes on anything he can, shells, guns. He has a kooky leftwing base, and the voters knew it. we are getting what we deserved. Let's hope the 2010 elections begins the turnaround.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Make no mistake, Obama is not a friend of gun owners, hunters or sportsman. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem. If the polls told him differently than they do today, he'd be after our gun rights faster than you can blink. Politically he cannot afford another high profile failure, nor can Nancy, Harry and the like. God forbid he get a second term...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Honestly do you think if the health care bill had enough votes to have gone through the senate along with anti gun legislation attached, he wouldn't have signed the bill. I'm not that naive. He would have signed it in a heartbeat. Or if any of the various anti gun legislation that never made it out of committees would have been passed that he wouldn't have signed it. I bet you couldn't say that with a straight face. This is a joke to even bring up, we all know that he is not going to bring his rating down any more by openly saying he is for gun control, but he is regardless if your unwilling to look at his past voting records or not. I am personally against all gun control, and would not vote for anyone who even thinks we need even the tiniest amount of it. And for the record all you NRA bashers, they are very fair and balanced on who they support in elections. They support the best candidate for the issue of firearms, whether they are R, D or I. Their issues of importance is guns, not healthcare, or pollution emmissions, or oil drilling, or anything else but guns and protecting the second amendment. Voiceing opinions in other areas than the second amendment would hurt their membership and make them somthing other than the National Rifle Association. Being mad at them for supporting a candidate that is pro second amendment but has some different opinions in conservation than what you support would like me being mad at them because they support the Democrat is for the second amendment and for abortion or against drilling for oil in Alaska. They stick to the second amendment regardless of their opinions elsewhere.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wlewisiii wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

This, I'm sure, makes the NRA estatic. They love the status quo as it's the best way for them to fear monger the money out of your pockets.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

logan,

What? He wouldn't have signed it? He would have signed anything to get a liberal policy passed! He signed a stimulus package that was drawn up by lobbyists after he said "no lobbyists" in my administration! I think he hired 40 plus lobbyists! 9,000 pork barrel projects in the bill that was over 1,000 pages long that no one even had time to read, or debate...and you say he wouldn't sign something? Please!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Sayfu
I said he would have signed it in a heartbeat. Meaning if the oportunity presented itself he would sign it.
The first sentence on my previous post was a question, meaning do you honestly think if he had the chance to sign anti gun legislation do you really think he would veto it. Then I said that i wouldn't be that naive, meaning hell yes he would sign it. I think you misunderstood my post as I am against socialism and liberalism.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Haw! OBama does something good for gunners and you guys act disapointed! Proves my point, Obama could do anything and you guys would still hate his guts. Plainly the con dislike for our elected president has nothing to do with gun rights and everything to do with some other more superficial prejudice. Wonder what that could be? Hmmm. Spoilsports.
As far as "black rifles" are concerned, my attitude is simple. You don't use a hammer to drive a screw. You don't use salt water tackle to catch kivvers. There are rifles designed for hunting various species and there are rifles designed for hunting men. While if you have only one rifle, that will be what you hunt with, still there ain't no open season on men (unless you be goin' to the sandbox).
Guns tend to be specialized, I have my Savage 24 for small game, my slug gun for deer, my .45 and my 12 ga pump for intruder alerts. I don't need an AR and I don't see why anybody who isn't in the business of hunting men needs one. My local police department doesn't have an AR, why would I need one. I have no need to outgun the local LEO's.
If you have a need and a good reason to have an AR I see no reason why you shouldn't have one, but I think they are ugly and I can conceive of no scenario whereI actually might need an AR, so I prefer to spend my gun money on arms I might actually enjoy shooting and lookin' at, rather than an ugly piece of black plastic and metal.
In the long run a gun is a gun, it has purpose and an esthetic. I don't need an AR anymore than I need a bayonet mount on my squirrel gun. If you need a bayonet mount on your duck gun then maybe you like the "assault rifle" style. But I never plan to assault anything or any one, that would be premeditation...

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I don't imagine that "Obama" is making his own choices. Most recently, the Dems passed the blame for budget decisions regarding Social Security non-payout to some kind of "Think Tank" that nobody ever heard of and who have absolutely no legal authority. Now they are going to foist off deficit "cuts" onto two professional blame-takers.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Bella
Are you seriously going to imply everyone who dislikes Obamas policies and positions is racist? That is what all you who can't take any criticism jump to is saying that we are all racist.
As far as not needing and AR, noone said you needed one. If you don't like them you don't like them. If I like them than that is my business and not yours. I don't see how a type of gun matters, as the all are just as deadly if used in a premeditive way. I want one and my reason if because I think they are cool, and I enjoy shooting guns and hunting with them. So if you think owning an AR is a sign that someone is into hunting men you are closed minded as a person can be. My cousin was in Iraq, and when she came home she wasn't comfortable enough to sleep. She couldn't figure out why, until her father bought her an assault rifle to lean in her corner. She had one for so long that she needed it to feel safe. So maybe there are many reasons to have one. I again say I don't care if you like them or want one, some people do, and its none of your business if they want one or have one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Bella,
If Obama gets through his years of presidency without passing anti-gun legislation, then I will be delighted to retract everything that I have said about him being anti-gun. Until then, we must go on what we actually know about him: namely, that his voting record is strongly anti-gun, so the odds are that he still is.

As for black guns, this isn't about need, it is about having a right. We don't need AR15s in the same way that we don't need 9mm's or 45's or tactical shotguns.I shouldn't have to have a "need and a good reason" for me to be able to own a black gun. As an American who is protected by the 2nd amendment, I have a right to own one whether or not I "need" one.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Logan I'd say yer cousin has a good reason to have an AR. Sleep is important, although I hadn't previously considered an M-4 a narcotic. I never said People shouldn't have 'em, I just think the whole "tactical" style is a fetish and almost invariably (aside from hunting men) AR's are substandard for hunting purposes when compared with arms specifically designed for the chase as opposed to warfare. I see the "black rifle" as part of a vast tide of uglyness that started with the Bauhaus and worms it's way into every aspect of post-modern life. But because of fashion, and the attractiveness of emulating faraway wars people want to hunt deer and coyotes and other critters with a rifle designed not for hunting but for combat, when other rifles (designed for deer or coyotes or other critters) will do the job better with a more attractive and natural asthetic.
A Spanish nobleman once advised his son to always acquire and utilize the finest and most beautiful weapons he could obtain, because a sword or a firearm is an instrument of Death, so it is a matter of utmost pride and personal honor to (if you must) give one's opponents the beneson of a beautiful death. One's choice of weapons is an indicator of one's class and social standing, not just a way of achieving victory on the battlefield or dueling ground.
The AR has an esthetic, yes but like the AK, it is an ugly esthetic. I feel I had enough to do with 'em when I was wearin' that green suit. I don't have to pretend to be a soldier, I am already a vet. I ain't ever going to war, unless by some calamity war comes to me. If that disturbing scenario were to come to pass, an AR would still do me little good as my role in any such disaster would more practically be involving my first responder training, bandages, quickclot and betadyne rather than kevlar and .223s.
I left the USAF because I was done with it, If I'd wanted more I woulda re-enlisted. My aversion to ARs is perfectly cognescent with my lack of interest in playing SWAT team when I go hunt small game. The Squirrels don't shoot back, and if a Swat Team comes knockin' on my door, I'm co-operating, "resistance is futile" sayeth the Borg. But then my local LEO's and I are on the same team, we both serve the citizens of our town, each with our own mission. Hunting men (on rare occasions) is the LEO's job, not mine. I want them to have the AR, I just don't need one.
If you have a legit reason to have an AR, by all means you should have one, but to me the only people who need military weapons are military. I am a civilian and I am happy with my civilian and historic arms. Why aren't you?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

It's harder for a woman to understand why I man would want an ar15 or an ak47. Women are just different from men, If I could afford a Colt ar15 I would buy one in a heartbeat. They are a lot of fun to shoot, you don't have to reload as often (depending on the shooter) and if the need ever arises, you have a very affective weapon to defend your property with. I would not personally use one for hunting because I like the traditional rifle style for hunting game. I do like ARs and that's the great thing about living in America, if you want one well by doggies just go out and buy one and have fun with it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I understand what you are saying, and I'm perfectly fine with it if you don't want to own one. However, as an American, I have a Constitutional RIGHT to own an AR15 if I so desire, whether or not I have a "legit reason" to own one. You don't "need" your .45, your 12 gauge pump is perfectly capable of fending off any intruders, yet no one would dream (at least, no conservatives would dream) of saying that you shouldn't own it because you don't have a legit reason to own one.

Why am I not satisfied with owning just "civilian" firearms? By your same argument, no one "needs" Ford Mustangs, Dodge Challengers, Dodge Chargers, Plymouth Barracudas, Corvettes, Porsches, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, or Bugattis, so why aren't they just satisfied with having a Toyota Camry?

Because they want fast, cool cars. And, if they have the money to buy one, they have a right to own one. Same deal with ARs.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Once Obama is voted out of office, he will likely return to his strongly anti-gun politics. Right now he knows he can ill afford to take on such a contentious issue, even within his own party.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

An AR is problematic when considered for home defense, as it will blow holes right through your house. The shotgun or pistol is a better choice for limiting damage to what you are shooting at. Japanese martial arts have this concept called "Mai" or engaging distance. Every sort of weapon has an engaging distance that that weapon best engages an opponent at. For your hand, that is "issoku itto" or "one step one strike". For a pistol that distance is practically 5 to 15 yards. If you are inside of 5 yards you are too close and outside of 15 yards you'd be wiser to have a shotgun. "Mai" for an AR would (I think) be 50 to 100 yards. I don't know how big your house is, but my house is small, If I shoot an Intruder outside my house, I had better be ready to prove somebody was in mortal danger! Inside my house there is no situation that would put me more than 20 feet from a prospective aggressor. Hence an AR is useless to me. I have semiauto .22s that are fun to plink with, but .223 is far too expensive for plinking with. If I'm hunting, I never take a semi-auto firearm even when I shoot one of my sheep or goats for the freezer I don't use a semi-auto. If I'm only going to shoot one round, why have to clean the more complicated pistol when the old Steven's Tip Up knockoff does the job safely and is faster to clean after.
I admit I still might like an M1 carbine (for my historical collection) and it was certainly a predecessor to the AR in that it fired an "intermediate" cartridge and it was carried by troops in roughly the same role as ARs are today. But in a carbine you have machined steel parts and a wooden stock (echoing the earlier asthetic), While most quality ARs have CNC machined parts the asthetic is still industrial.
As far as the Ferrari, Charger and fast car thing comparason goes is doesn't quite hold. Now if you considered civilian ownership of military vehicles as the paradigm then. I myself own a Jeep, but I don't need an LCAC or even a Bradley. Do you need a Bradley? Some individuals do own obsolete armored vehicles such as Sherman Tanks and other historic vehicles that they restore and drive in parades. I highly approve of such efforts, but do you think such hobbyists are allowed 75mm rounds for the Sherman's gun? Similarly there are numerous companies who run DKUW amphibious trucks in and out of various municiple harbors as tourist conveyances. These are lots of fun and I used to think it would be neat to convert one into some sort of amphibious RV. There is still a civilian mission for the good ole DKUW. Humvees are proven to be such good vehicles that a lot of folks (who can afford the fuel) want 'em. But is there such a civilian "mission" for a MLRS? In Siberia people often use old BMPs to get around the tundra and taiga, but this is often a case of "what is available that might actually be able to function in these wretched conditions" sort of situation. Anybody wanna see folks driving BMP around on the interstates? Imagine taking the whole 9 year old girls soccer team to the field in your bright pink BMP. Think of the smoke from the exhaust and the divots in the soccer field as the BMP pulls up slews around and drops the rear door to deploy the team...Try not to run over anybodies Prius now...

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

So you don't like the aesthetics of an AR, and you don't think they are very useful. Good for you. Doesn't affect me.

As for my fast cars comparison, my point was that we never grant ownership of items to people based upon their "needs" (aside from welfare and scholarships and such), and it is ridiculous to start doing that with firearms. Technically, an AR is a civilian rifle just as much as a Hummer is a civilian car. The AR you would buy in a gunshop is a completely different weapon than the M4 our troops use, due to the fact that it lacks full-automatic capabilities. It is a civilian knock-off of a military tool, just as the Hummer is a civilian knock-off of the Humvee.

My point in all of this is that we have a right to own firearms, whether we need them or not. All types of firearms, whether or not they are aesthetically pleasing or useful for hunting.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

A correction, the only game I would hunt with an AR15 are yotes, fast action and a quick follow up shot if you miss.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Bella
I never once said I wasn't happy with my guns. On the contrary I am very happy with them. This was not my point, my point was that it should be up to me to decide whether I have a AR, not some politician or you. They may be more useful for people where I live beings the closest police are Forty miles away, and I have more than just a house to protect. I have livestock, and machinery, as well as a lot of other valuables around my place, and it is farther than 50 to 100 yards away to the sheds on my place. This is not however the reason I want an AR, the reason I want one is for coyote hunting, and for shats and giggles. That is my right beings I live in the USA and we have the second Amendment. You say that you don't need these guns, however the argument there is not valid because if people had only what they needed noone would need a gun, we would all have longbows. We don't live in the USA to have only what we need, we live here to prosper and have what we want. I don't need to have a beer ever, but I sure enjoy drinking some once a week. This applies to everything, do you need a computer, no but you have one. Do you have to have running water and a toilet, no but you do. There is lots we don't need, but he have it anyways. Noone deserves the right to tell someone else how to live and what they can or can't have, this should be up to the person themselves.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

As Rush would say " right on, right on, right on"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

According to my sources, Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller case before the Supreme Court.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from uplander12 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

"The NRA wasn't 'crying wolf'."

The NRA is always crying wolf. That's how they get their money. They tell you that unless you give them your money, you will never own a gun again and that your passion of hunting will be gone for good. the NRA does not really care about hunters except for their dollars. They just want you to believe that the politician in DC will take away your guns and the guy next door will break down your door and kill your family.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Uplander,
As much as you would like to deny it, the NRA is the single largest pro-gun voice out there. In a time when you have numerous organizations such as the Brady Campaign, VPI, etc, all trying to push anti-gun legislation through, we need every friend we can get. The NRA is an ally, not an enemy, and you need to remember that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

The NRA is a business or they wouldn't be pushing insurance. AARP wants me to buy insurance, AAA wants me to buy their insurance even my Alma Mater wants to sell me insurance! I like the NRA magazine but wish they would do more articles on stuff that actually interests me and less conservative hype. Conservatism today is all about bellyachin' and blaming other people for "conservative" screw ups. I want to see people talking about solutions to problems and social issues (that aren't draconian) not about stonewalling and obstructionism. The middle classes back is against the wall, American Democracy is based on a strong middle class and will likely fall if the evisceration of the middle class continues. The middle class was based on personal home ownership and manufacturing for export. Now people are loosing their homes and the manufacturing jobs are long gone to Taiwan. It is easy to see who pushed the policies that lead us to this debacle, it is easy to see which fallacious notions were invoked to excuse the wrecking. Idiotic concepts like "the trickle down theory" and "deregulation" have been used to justify the crashing of the economy. We haven't had a "Free Market" in ages, because the guys advocating such a delusion were busy doing insider trading and cheating at the poker game. Now I don't play poker, but I know how it is played and what do you do when you find someone who cheats at cards? Do you keep playing? Do you throw the bum out? Do you make him give you a cut of the take or do you try to "cheat better"? Corporations are not people, but are usually stalking horses for those who would "cheat at cards". It is likely to get worse before it gets better, but remember, it isn't some unemployed single mother sleeping on a couch who is responsible for crashing the economy, but she will likely feel the pain before the "recovery". The "recovery" has to be about jobs, but jobs for little people, there are enough do-nothing millionares who can take the hit, the little people have already had more trauma than they may be able to take.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Uplander, Unfortunately it is "show me the money," Money does talk, and if the anti-gun folks, have, and spend more money then your gun rights will be negatively effected.

Obama had far more money than even the Clinton's, and won the election. Fortunately, the money tree has turned, and conservative causes are getting flooded with cash. Brown winning in Mass. is an example. Money came in from everywhere. He was taking in a million bucks a day for his campaign.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Bella,
Yes, the NRA is a business, but they are still an ally. And we need every ally we can get, whether it is the NRA or the Weir guy who is getting death threats from PETA. The reason they do conservative hype is because their biggest fan base is made up of conservatives: generally, people who are pro-gun aren't in favor of the government controlling everything, for instance.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your post with a response.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Bella,

What? Corporations are not people? Now that is pure liberal notion...how else could they fool the people into thinking corporations are evil?lol Of course Corporations are people. They are owned by the stock holders, and the employees make up the corporation.
The big thing that is killing the poor and the middle class presently is the anti-capitalists that are controlling the economy, and SHRINKING IT by reducing the private sector jobs that are tax creating, and increasing govt jobs that are tax eating. Wow are you far off the deep left end of the pool!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 6 weeks ago

Bella, The neocons will not let up on Obama because the guy lies at every turn! If he decides to support his kooky, leftist base he could care less whether he said at some time in the past that he supports gun ownership...switching gears is something he has no qualms about doing. Even his leftist base is fed up with the guy.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Winchester2512 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

This was a great editorial. I had no idea of those things that obama has done. I thought that he was most defanetly anit-gun. The fact that he signed a bill allowing us to carry firearms into a national park blew me away. I thought it was entirely his fault that ammo prices have skyrocketed and now i find out that it is most likely his staff that has brought around these terrible changes. I still dont support him but i have some more respect for him. And the comment about how he dosent have fond memories of sitting in a tree stand but his mama didnt raise no fool is genius.He is at least thinking about how bad of an idea it would be to mess with the gun rights of Americans. It just shouldnt and wont be done as long as we call ourselves Americans and stand for freedom. We dont send our troops away to foreign countrys to die for our freedom and the have some stupid gun hater take that away from us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

More respect? Maybe it was the communists that he hired that made the decisions? lol

The guy is a disaster for this country. I'm surprised he took the time to sign anything. He didn't even show up to vote most of the time when he was a Senator. The guy is no leader, and can't be trusted on any issue. He's handed out guns to his Democrat Party members in congress asking them to commit political suicide by signing his ObamaCare bill so he can try to save himself.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from BowtechWVU wrote 4 years 3 weeks ago

The new president obama may have done this but lets see what happens in the future with his proposed gun laws

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jdrabe wrote 3 years 42 weeks ago

I don't really care if the crooks are GOP or Dem in flavor, The fact is, they have all been selling the middle class down the river for about the last 30 years. They are all bought off by the corporate aristocracy with legal bribes called "campaign donations". Thats why we get gouged at the pump, ripped off by crooked bankers, and our insurance companies can refuse to pay legitimate claims and they all get away with it. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he supports individuals rights to carry per his word. Two votes pro-gun and none against, at least so far as President. The economy got driven into the ditch by the last batch of crooks and while I'm not to happy with the wrecker pulling us out, it at least appears we are getting out of the ditch. All the gun grabber talk about Obama so far just hasn't panned out so I kind of think it's a distraction by those who dont have a legitamite issue.What are they trying to distract us from? I don't like the crooked politicians anymore than I like the crooked corporate aristocracy. So far, I think I am seeing him trying to get the middle class up and running again more than cutting big fat breaks to the aristocracy and corporate cronies.Again ture to his word. If that changes, I'll be the first to eat my words. BTW, Ive had several ffl transers during his term, and no more holds unlike under the last bunch, just a lot more trouble finding 32 H&R mag ammo

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Grulla Shooter wrote 3 years 30 weeks ago

jdrabe has it right! Starting with Regan-nomics most of us started getting screwed! Trickle down my a**. More like "we take it all and screw the idiots that let us in". Unfortunately the idiots keep letting them in to pillage the middle class. Hopefully Mr Obama will follow through with his words about takling care of us. If he does you righties will still not like it but be better off because of it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law.Buy old goods online, buying goods online, buy mobile phone, buy products . Get sim free mobile phones and you also want online shopping then you can visit at oldgoodsonline.com .

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration drive with ten staffers and seven hundred volunteer registrars; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. In 1993 he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation.SEO Company in Kolkata, seo company india offers affordable seo services, seo services India , sem services, guaranteed seo services, seo consulting services, website seo services, website design services.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

From 1994 to 2002, Obama served on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.India’s largest Real Estate Company to find an affordable property in India, Kolkata, Mumbai. Buy real estate India property, Flat, House, Office Space Property in Kolkata.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

Obama sponsored legislation that would have required nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks, but the bill failed to pass in the full Senate after being heavily modified in committee. Regarding tort reform, Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which grants immunity from civil liability to telecommunications companies complicit with NSA warrantless wiretapping operations.Find seo freelance work from your home, home based jobs, earn from home etc. More details contact at seofreelance.co.in .

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

Private home tutoring services for Indian cities - kolkata, siliguri, bardhaman, durgapur, malda, Agartala, Agra, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Aligarh, Allahabad, Amritsar, Aurangabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Dhanbad, Durgapur, Faridabad, Gandhinagar, Goa, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Ranchi, Siliguri, Online tutoring help you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YoungGun1994 wrote 3 years 21 weeks ago

Obama might not be the smartest guy in the world..but at least he's not messing with guns.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YoungGun1994 wrote 3 years 21 weeks ago

Obama might not be the smartest guy in the world..but at least he's not messing with guns.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Derek St.Romain wrote 3 years 20 weeks ago

Osamma is anti-America. period.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from stick500 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

the NRA plays gun owners like a fiddle every election year- they need a big bad boogyman to get all the hunters to cough up major $s to keep the org. afloat- meanwhile, many of the elected GOP do just the opposite of what is good for fish and wildlife populations and no one seems to notice, though F&S gets it right quite often!

+15 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Yoop it's good to see your posts again and if you have been here lately then I'm sorry I missed you.
I am of the same opinion of the Chicago Tribune columnist. Obama is a saavy politician. I think he understands and has taken notice that gun control is not the driving issue it once was during the 80's and 90's. The fact that the 1994 elections in which the Republicans ruled the house for the first time in 40 years came after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was no mere coincidence. I remember that the 1994 ban passed by only one vote. I'll wager that the recent surge in firearm purchases and attendant shortage of ammunition has not escaped his notice either.
It will be up to us to keep the pro-gun ball rolling by introducing more people to the shooting sports and maintaining a positive image of firearm ownership.
For those of you who noticed, concerning the recent shooting in Alabama, the press is focusing on "how this possibly violent person was overlooked for so long" as opposed to "look what someone has done with a gun!"
Maybe we can eventually attain the place where those who want to prohibit firearm ownership become the fringe minority like groups such as PETA.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from mutt wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I have said this for a long time that he has more to worry about than gun control.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

"He could do nothing about gun control regulation and still bring it all down through the U.N."

Actually, no, he can't.
1. Assuming the US voted in favor of a resolution for world firearms control in the UN Assembly, it would have no force of law in the US, because a UN Assembly vote is not a treaty ratified by the US Senate.

2. Assuming the US Senate were to ratify such a treaty, it would have the same force of law as a bill passed in both houses of congress and signed by the president. The USSJC could overturn such a law on a Constitutional challenge and the same could be done to any treaty.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from CaptChuck57 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Gun control was never one of Obama's campaign platforms so it should come as no surprise that he's done nothing. Conservatives just cooked that up because he's on the other side so he must automatically be anti-gun. Just another way for Republicans to get more votes, but don't be fooled Democrats play this game too.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

The NRA wasn't "crying wolf". Obama had anti-gun history in the Illinois Senate. True, he never made gun legislation part of his campaign but he also knew that many of his congressional supporters were Blue Dog Democrats who had been elected as pro 2A. Also, he had other priorities such as health care.
I continue to be amazed at how ineffective this president is. This includes legislation that hasn't passed and legislation that has passed but doesn't accomplish any intended goals.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from finnyk wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Let's be honest here. The man is a politician. His position on gun rights and gun control will be controlled by a public opinion poll paid for by his backers. The pollsters will then go out and poll their "representative sample of Americans" (to read, Obama's backers) and THEY will determine his approach. He will do what he thinks is expedient and in the best interests of maintaining a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate in 2010. THEN he will do what is in the best interests of getting re-elected in 2012. If those two positions differ, he will have some type of explanation that people will or won't buy.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Bella
I never once said I wasn't happy with my guns. On the contrary I am very happy with them. This was not my point, my point was that it should be up to me to decide whether I have a AR, not some politician or you. They may be more useful for people where I live beings the closest police are Forty miles away, and I have more than just a house to protect. I have livestock, and machinery, as well as a lot of other valuables around my place, and it is farther than 50 to 100 yards away to the sheds on my place. This is not however the reason I want an AR, the reason I want one is for coyote hunting, and for shats and giggles. That is my right beings I live in the USA and we have the second Amendment. You say that you don't need these guns, however the argument there is not valid because if people had only what they needed noone would need a gun, we would all have longbows. We don't live in the USA to have only what we need, we live here to prosper and have what we want. I don't need to have a beer ever, but I sure enjoy drinking some once a week. This applies to everything, do you need a computer, no but you have one. Do you have to have running water and a toilet, no but you do. There is lots we don't need, but he have it anyways. Noone deserves the right to tell someone else how to live and what they can or can't have, this should be up to the person themselves.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Obama was more worried about a health care bill than he was creating jobs for the millions of laid off citizens of this country, with all the popularity he's received I really feel he has zero intrest in changing gun laws. Besides he would have a hard time getting a tax cut through congress and the senate for the rest of his one term tenure!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

"Yes, you are right, but if the Senate does ratify the treaty under Obama's influence (which is waning, I hope) and it gets through the court, which he is stacking, it could happen. Backdoor way of approaching it while he smirks."

True enough. I just don't think there's much hope of anything like a treaty calling for that sort of thing ever making it through the senate. There's alot of Dems on the side of the 2nd Amendment, to say nothing of universal opposition to Handgun Control Inc in the GOP.

"What I'm still trying to figure out is what happens to international gun trade if ratified by other countries that build and supply us with guns. Any thoughts?"

Well, based on what happened to Iraq under "sanctions" and the level of cooperation (none) that we get from Russia and China (both of whom are big weapons exporters), I'd say that European exports will be hurt and the demand will be filled by Russia and China.

Working from their, I'd guess that if anyone took such a UN resolution seriously (which people rarely if ever do), it might mean that some of the high-end European firearms manufacturers would relocate to countries that don't give a toot about UN resolutions. They might even relocate to the USA. I think it'd be pretty cool if Uberti or Browning would relocate to Arizona, although I recognize that it's a pipe dream.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sharkfin wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I don't care why he's not messing with them just as long as he doesn't. I doubt he'll have a chance to. I am betting on Obama being a one and done president. After a year he's got people on both sides pretty unhappy.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Make no mistake, Obama is not a friend of gun owners, hunters or sportsman. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem. If the polls told him differently than they do today, he'd be after our gun rights faster than you can blink. Politically he cannot afford another high profile failure, nor can Nancy, Harry and the like. God forbid he get a second term...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

His momma didn't raise no fool?
Even the author of the article states,

"Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a "canny politician" in the White House: He doesn't have to."

At this point in time in his Presidential, four year trial and grace period, he would be committing political suicide to say or do anything against the Second Ammendment.If he even thought about it,"out loud," people would march on Washington, gun in hand, creating the biggest Revolution this country has ever seen in our life time.

The real question is,"why hasn't he done something in regards to our Second Ammendment rights?"

Steve Chapman the author,who is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman, says it's because Obama believes there is something in it for him and the rest of the democrats.

"Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control."

By the way the author used the words,"canny politician" in describing the President.
The orgin of this word is of Scottish and northern England formation from can in its sense of "know how to." Often used superciliously of Scots by their southern neighbors, implying "thrift and an eye to the main chance."

Bipartisanship?

That ... ship is still in the harbor, burned by the people who elected this "canny politician!"

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I don't imagine that "Obama" is making his own choices. Most recently, the Dems passed the blame for budget decisions regarding Social Security non-payout to some kind of "Think Tank" that nobody ever heard of and who have absolutely no legal authority. Now they are going to foist off deficit "cuts" onto two professional blame-takers.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

His voting record is anti-gun, definitely, but he's smart enough to leave the issue alone now that the American people are actually keeping an eye on him. He's lost enough support already (down 20+ percentage points since he was elected) without stirring the hornet's nest of gun control.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Bella,
If Obama gets through his years of presidency without passing anti-gun legislation, then I will be delighted to retract everything that I have said about him being anti-gun. Until then, we must go on what we actually know about him: namely, that his voting record is strongly anti-gun, so the odds are that he still is.

As for black guns, this isn't about need, it is about having a right. We don't need AR15s in the same way that we don't need 9mm's or 45's or tactical shotguns.I shouldn't have to have a "need and a good reason" for me to be able to own a black gun. As an American who is protected by the 2nd amendment, I have a right to own one whether or not I "need" one.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

So you don't like the aesthetics of an AR, and you don't think they are very useful. Good for you. Doesn't affect me.

As for my fast cars comparison, my point was that we never grant ownership of items to people based upon their "needs" (aside from welfare and scholarships and such), and it is ridiculous to start doing that with firearms. Technically, an AR is a civilian rifle just as much as a Hummer is a civilian car. The AR you would buy in a gunshop is a completely different weapon than the M4 our troops use, due to the fact that it lacks full-automatic capabilities. It is a civilian knock-off of a military tool, just as the Hummer is a civilian knock-off of the Humvee.

My point in all of this is that we have a right to own firearms, whether we need them or not. All types of firearms, whether or not they are aesthetically pleasing or useful for hunting.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from willowa wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

If BHO is not anti gun (as his record from Ill. certainly says he is), why does he support 'Hillary's' signing on for the UN 'arms [read 'small arms'] world wide gun control? And, lest anyone think that would effect only everyone else, witness the 'Pres's' changing of Exectutive Order #12425 (originally Ronald Reagan's) to give INTERPOL diplomatic immunity! They can operate freely in the US: no miranda, no probable cause, their offices cannot be searched, nor can they be required to give up any information, records, etc., unless they agree to do so. One more step to 'one world' gov't. And, cosidering how the rest of the world thinks on private gun ownership, not a good sign at all.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Mike - It's been a hard sleepless week. Yes, you are right, but if the Senate does ratify the treaty under Obama's influence (which is waning, I hope) and it gets through the court, which he is stacking, it could happen. Backdoor way of approaching it while he smirks.

What I'm still trying to figure out is what happens to international gun trade if ratified by other countries that build and supply us with guns. Any thoughts?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Also please don't mistake my use of "hope" of such a treaty meaning that I hope for it. I was thinking of the "hope of an ice cube in hades" rhetorical way when I wrote that. I dislike every one of these Globalist bureaucracies.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Logan I'd say yer cousin has a good reason to have an AR. Sleep is important, although I hadn't previously considered an M-4 a narcotic. I never said People shouldn't have 'em, I just think the whole "tactical" style is a fetish and almost invariably (aside from hunting men) AR's are substandard for hunting purposes when compared with arms specifically designed for the chase as opposed to warfare. I see the "black rifle" as part of a vast tide of uglyness that started with the Bauhaus and worms it's way into every aspect of post-modern life. But because of fashion, and the attractiveness of emulating faraway wars people want to hunt deer and coyotes and other critters with a rifle designed not for hunting but for combat, when other rifles (designed for deer or coyotes or other critters) will do the job better with a more attractive and natural asthetic.
A Spanish nobleman once advised his son to always acquire and utilize the finest and most beautiful weapons he could obtain, because a sword or a firearm is an instrument of Death, so it is a matter of utmost pride and personal honor to (if you must) give one's opponents the beneson of a beautiful death. One's choice of weapons is an indicator of one's class and social standing, not just a way of achieving victory on the battlefield or dueling ground.
The AR has an esthetic, yes but like the AK, it is an ugly esthetic. I feel I had enough to do with 'em when I was wearin' that green suit. I don't have to pretend to be a soldier, I am already a vet. I ain't ever going to war, unless by some calamity war comes to me. If that disturbing scenario were to come to pass, an AR would still do me little good as my role in any such disaster would more practically be involving my first responder training, bandages, quickclot and betadyne rather than kevlar and .223s.
I left the USAF because I was done with it, If I'd wanted more I woulda re-enlisted. My aversion to ARs is perfectly cognescent with my lack of interest in playing SWAT team when I go hunt small game. The Squirrels don't shoot back, and if a Swat Team comes knockin' on my door, I'm co-operating, "resistance is futile" sayeth the Borg. But then my local LEO's and I are on the same team, we both serve the citizens of our town, each with our own mission. Hunting men (on rare occasions) is the LEO's job, not mine. I want them to have the AR, I just don't need one.
If you have a legit reason to have an AR, by all means you should have one, but to me the only people who need military weapons are military. I am a civilian and I am happy with my civilian and historic arms. Why aren't you?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

It's harder for a woman to understand why I man would want an ar15 or an ak47. Women are just different from men, If I could afford a Colt ar15 I would buy one in a heartbeat. They are a lot of fun to shoot, you don't have to reload as often (depending on the shooter) and if the need ever arises, you have a very affective weapon to defend your property with. I would not personally use one for hunting because I like the traditional rifle style for hunting game. I do like ARs and that's the great thing about living in America, if you want one well by doggies just go out and buy one and have fun with it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tunadave wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I'll hazard a radical thought. From someone who hasn't seen but a few select Democrats who I could begin to trust, and has been severely disappointed by the antics of most Republicans for the last several years, let's try this. I was talking with a good friend the other day about the general failure of the government in Washington. What if we were to throw ALL of them out and replace them with 500+ random people off the street? The only disadvantage I can see is that they wouldn't have had the opportunity to serve a prior term in the finishing school for corruption, A.K.A. Congress, to hone their pandering skills. They might even actually care about what their constituents want! Then, after four years, allow the previously deposed congressional members a chance to run against the new incumbents. I wonder how many would be returned to office? Me, I can't wait for November.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from NolanOsborne wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

:)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Honestly do you think if the health care bill had enough votes to have gone through the senate along with anti gun legislation attached, he wouldn't have signed the bill. I'm not that naive. He would have signed it in a heartbeat. Or if any of the various anti gun legislation that never made it out of committees would have been passed that he wouldn't have signed it. I bet you couldn't say that with a straight face. This is a joke to even bring up, we all know that he is not going to bring his rating down any more by openly saying he is for gun control, but he is regardless if your unwilling to look at his past voting records or not. I am personally against all gun control, and would not vote for anyone who even thinks we need even the tiniest amount of it. And for the record all you NRA bashers, they are very fair and balanced on who they support in elections. They support the best candidate for the issue of firearms, whether they are R, D or I. Their issues of importance is guns, not healthcare, or pollution emmissions, or oil drilling, or anything else but guns and protecting the second amendment. Voiceing opinions in other areas than the second amendment would hurt their membership and make them somthing other than the National Rifle Association. Being mad at them for supporting a candidate that is pro second amendment but has some different opinions in conservation than what you support would like me being mad at them because they support the Democrat is for the second amendment and for abortion or against drilling for oil in Alaska. They stick to the second amendment regardless of their opinions elsewhere.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Sayfu
I said he would have signed it in a heartbeat. Meaning if the oportunity presented itself he would sign it.
The first sentence on my previous post was a question, meaning do you honestly think if he had the chance to sign anti gun legislation do you really think he would veto it. Then I said that i wouldn't be that naive, meaning hell yes he would sign it. I think you misunderstood my post as I am against socialism and liberalism.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Justin D wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Hello!! Look at his history before he was pres- He is anti gun. and anti- American. Read his two books! It will shock you!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I understand what you are saying, and I'm perfectly fine with it if you don't want to own one. However, as an American, I have a Constitutional RIGHT to own an AR15 if I so desire, whether or not I have a "legit reason" to own one. You don't "need" your .45, your 12 gauge pump is perfectly capable of fending off any intruders, yet no one would dream (at least, no conservatives would dream) of saying that you shouldn't own it because you don't have a legit reason to own one.

Why am I not satisfied with owning just "civilian" firearms? By your same argument, no one "needs" Ford Mustangs, Dodge Challengers, Dodge Chargers, Plymouth Barracudas, Corvettes, Porsches, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, or Bugattis, so why aren't they just satisfied with having a Toyota Camry?

Because they want fast, cool cars. And, if they have the money to buy one, they have a right to own one. Same deal with ARs.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark J wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

This is why I don't pay much attention to people who hype a Presidential candidates as anti-gun nuts who are going to take all our guns away. Like finnyk said, at the end of the day they are all politicians. And there is nothing politically intelligent about launching a strong anti-gun campaign, especially when there are so many more important issues at hand. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in America believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms. It seems to me that they would lose a lot more supporters than they would gain.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from IowaGuy wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Field Notes:

Thanks for pointing out some realities and facts rather than slinging labels around.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

logan,

What? He wouldn't have signed it? He would have signed anything to get a liberal policy passed! He signed a stimulus package that was drawn up by lobbyists after he said "no lobbyists" in my administration! I think he hired 40 plus lobbyists! 9,000 pork barrel projects in the bill that was over 1,000 pages long that no one even had time to read, or debate...and you say he wouldn't sign something? Please!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from cas0905 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

gun control is not going to help anything as far as criminal activities. if you think about it the people that gun control would affect are only the people that get their guns legally, who for the most part arent the problem. The thugs and criminals will still be able to get guns illegally and they are the real problem, not bubba with his rifle shooting deer

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

His history in Illinois is anti-gun. He could do nothing about gun control regulation and still bring it all down through the U.N.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Mike - thanks for the clarification. I will have to look into that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ricefarm wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Obama got himself tied up with his first priority which was taking over the health care industry. He is a product of Chicago politics, and for some reason the godfather of Chicago politicians, Mayor for life Richard M Daley, doesn't think any of us "citizens" should be allowed to own guns. Obama himself has no real soul, he just promotes what he thinks will make him popular and gun control is going to be a ways down his priority list. Get him out of office in 2012 and he will never come close to getting far enough down his list to get to us disillustioned rednecks clinging to our guns and religion.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

The NRA is a business or they wouldn't be pushing insurance. AARP wants me to buy insurance, AAA wants me to buy their insurance even my Alma Mater wants to sell me insurance! I like the NRA magazine but wish they would do more articles on stuff that actually interests me and less conservative hype. Conservatism today is all about bellyachin' and blaming other people for "conservative" screw ups. I want to see people talking about solutions to problems and social issues (that aren't draconian) not about stonewalling and obstructionism. The middle classes back is against the wall, American Democracy is based on a strong middle class and will likely fall if the evisceration of the middle class continues. The middle class was based on personal home ownership and manufacturing for export. Now people are loosing their homes and the manufacturing jobs are long gone to Taiwan. It is easy to see who pushed the policies that lead us to this debacle, it is easy to see which fallacious notions were invoked to excuse the wrecking. Idiotic concepts like "the trickle down theory" and "deregulation" have been used to justify the crashing of the economy. We haven't had a "Free Market" in ages, because the guys advocating such a delusion were busy doing insider trading and cheating at the poker game. Now I don't play poker, but I know how it is played and what do you do when you find someone who cheats at cards? Do you keep playing? Do you throw the bum out? Do you make him give you a cut of the take or do you try to "cheat better"? Corporations are not people, but are usually stalking horses for those who would "cheat at cards". It is likely to get worse before it gets better, but remember, it isn't some unemployed single mother sleeping on a couch who is responsible for crashing the economy, but she will likely feel the pain before the "recovery". The "recovery" has to be about jobs, but jobs for little people, there are enough do-nothing millionares who can take the hit, the little people have already had more trauma than they may be able to take.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

It would seem we have some Obama lovers on this site.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shotgunlou wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I took a few minutes to read some of this guys other columns and found that any mention of Barack Hussein Obama was something like this..."well he's really not that bad of a guy. He hasnt done anything really bad...yet." This guy says he's a gun owner and supports the 2A but he has his face so far up Fobama's ass that his breath will smell like s#!t for the rest of his life.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Bella
Are you seriously going to imply everyone who dislikes Obamas policies and positions is racist? That is what all you who can't take any criticism jump to is saying that we are all racist.
As far as not needing and AR, noone said you needed one. If you don't like them you don't like them. If I like them than that is my business and not yours. I don't see how a type of gun matters, as the all are just as deadly if used in a premeditive way. I want one and my reason if because I think they are cool, and I enjoy shooting guns and hunting with them. So if you think owning an AR is a sign that someone is into hunting men you are closed minded as a person can be. My cousin was in Iraq, and when she came home she wasn't comfortable enough to sleep. She couldn't figure out why, until her father bought her an assault rifle to lean in her corner. She had one for so long that she needed it to feel safe. So maybe there are many reasons to have one. I again say I don't care if you like them or want one, some people do, and its none of your business if they want one or have one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from uplander12 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

"The NRA wasn't 'crying wolf'."

The NRA is always crying wolf. That's how they get their money. They tell you that unless you give them your money, you will never own a gun again and that your passion of hunting will be gone for good. the NRA does not really care about hunters except for their dollars. They just want you to believe that the politician in DC will take away your guns and the guy next door will break down your door and kill your family.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I'm with Justin. You can't trust any politician, you need to look at their voting record (meager as Obama's is) to discern what they really think.

And Bella, you're the one who's against people buying AR15's, so obviously your definition of "gun control" is different from most other sportsmen.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clamp wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

All you have to do is look at 1994 to see why they (the dems) dont go after the citizens guns. They know now that when they do that they lose.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

According to my sources, Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller case before the Supreme Court.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

who knows he flip flops more than a landed fish

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from IowaGuy wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Stick500, good point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from J4huntfish wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

taking away guns wont help anything it will just cause more problems. if you take away guns then you might just take away everthing else because anthing can be a weapon. your voice can be a weapon too, heres how to say it obama is a load of monkey crap. besides on anthing can be a weapon. have you seen what jail inmates can make they make shanks out of news papers

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jdrabe wrote 3 years 42 weeks ago

I don't really care if the crooks are GOP or Dem in flavor, The fact is, they have all been selling the middle class down the river for about the last 30 years. They are all bought off by the corporate aristocracy with legal bribes called "campaign donations". Thats why we get gouged at the pump, ripped off by crooked bankers, and our insurance companies can refuse to pay legitimate claims and they all get away with it. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he supports individuals rights to carry per his word. Two votes pro-gun and none against, at least so far as President. The economy got driven into the ditch by the last batch of crooks and while I'm not to happy with the wrecker pulling us out, it at least appears we are getting out of the ditch. All the gun grabber talk about Obama so far just hasn't panned out so I kind of think it's a distraction by those who dont have a legitamite issue.What are they trying to distract us from? I don't like the crooked politicians anymore than I like the crooked corporate aristocracy. So far, I think I am seeing him trying to get the middle class up and running again more than cutting big fat breaks to the aristocracy and corporate cronies.Again ture to his word. If that changes, I'll be the first to eat my words. BTW, Ive had several ffl transers during his term, and no more holds unlike under the last bunch, just a lot more trouble finding 32 H&R mag ammo

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

ALL CONTROL!

He wants to be just like Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías !!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

A correction, the only game I would hunt with an AR15 are yotes, fast action and a quick follow up shot if you miss.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

As Rush would say " right on, right on, right on"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

For an ineffective president, he has spent a hell of a lot of money that we don't have but our children and grandchildren will be responsible for. In my so not humble opinion, I believe his "plan" was to get the stimulus through, the budget, healthecare and then cap and trade. After that was done he would have time for those "who cling to religion and guns". Luckily, Being a president is harder than running to be one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Derek St.Romain wrote 3 years 20 weeks ago

Osamma is anti-America. period.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Plus, look at the source. It's the Chicago Tribune, a liberal paper written in Liberal Town, USA. Not exactly an unbiased source here...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Uplander,
As much as you would like to deny it, the NRA is the single largest pro-gun voice out there. In a time when you have numerous organizations such as the Brady Campaign, VPI, etc, all trying to push anti-gun legislation through, we need every friend we can get. The NRA is an ally, not an enemy, and you need to remember that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Bella,
Yes, the NRA is a business, but they are still an ally. And we need every ally we can get, whether it is the NRA or the Weir guy who is getting death threats from PETA. The reason they do conservative hype is because their biggest fan base is made up of conservatives: generally, people who are pro-gun aren't in favor of the government controlling everything, for instance.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your post with a response.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Obama has been an economic disaster. He'll now raise taxes on anything he can, shells, guns. He has a kooky leftwing base, and the voters knew it. we are getting what we deserved. Let's hope the 2010 elections begins the turnaround.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Uplander, Unfortunately it is "show me the money," Money does talk, and if the anti-gun folks, have, and spend more money then your gun rights will be negatively effected.

Obama had far more money than even the Clinton's, and won the election. Fortunately, the money tree has turned, and conservative causes are getting flooded with cash. Brown winning in Mass. is an example. Money came in from everywhere. He was taking in a million bucks a day for his campaign.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Bella,

What? Corporations are not people? Now that is pure liberal notion...how else could they fool the people into thinking corporations are evil?lol Of course Corporations are people. They are owned by the stock holders, and the employees make up the corporation.
The big thing that is killing the poor and the middle class presently is the anti-capitalists that are controlling the economy, and SHRINKING IT by reducing the private sector jobs that are tax creating, and increasing govt jobs that are tax eating. Wow are you far off the deep left end of the pool!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 6 weeks ago

Bella, The neocons will not let up on Obama because the guy lies at every turn! If he decides to support his kooky, leftist base he could care less whether he said at some time in the past that he supports gun ownership...switching gears is something he has no qualms about doing. Even his leftist base is fed up with the guy.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BowtechWVU wrote 4 years 3 weeks ago

The new president obama may have done this but lets see what happens in the future with his proposed gun laws

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Winchester2512 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

This was a great editorial. I had no idea of those things that obama has done. I thought that he was most defanetly anit-gun. The fact that he signed a bill allowing us to carry firearms into a national park blew me away. I thought it was entirely his fault that ammo prices have skyrocketed and now i find out that it is most likely his staff that has brought around these terrible changes. I still dont support him but i have some more respect for him. And the comment about how he dosent have fond memories of sitting in a tree stand but his mama didnt raise no fool is genius.He is at least thinking about how bad of an idea it would be to mess with the gun rights of Americans. It just shouldnt and wont be done as long as we call ourselves Americans and stand for freedom. We dont send our troops away to foreign countrys to die for our freedom and the have some stupid gun hater take that away from us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Grulla Shooter wrote 3 years 30 weeks ago

jdrabe has it right! Starting with Regan-nomics most of us started getting screwed! Trickle down my a**. More like "we take it all and screw the idiots that let us in". Unfortunately the idiots keep letting them in to pillage the middle class. Hopefully Mr Obama will follow through with his words about takling care of us. If he does you righties will still not like it but be better off because of it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law.Buy old goods online, buying goods online, buy mobile phone, buy products . Get sim free mobile phones and you also want online shopping then you can visit at oldgoodsonline.com .

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration drive with ten staffers and seven hundred volunteer registrars; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. In 1993 he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation.SEO Company in Kolkata, seo company india offers affordable seo services, seo services India , sem services, guaranteed seo services, seo consulting services, website seo services, website design services.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

From 1994 to 2002, Obama served on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.India’s largest Real Estate Company to find an affordable property in India, Kolkata, Mumbai. Buy real estate India property, Flat, House, Office Space Property in Kolkata.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

Obama sponsored legislation that would have required nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks, but the bill failed to pass in the full Senate after being heavily modified in committee. Regarding tort reform, Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which grants immunity from civil liability to telecommunications companies complicit with NSA warrantless wiretapping operations.Find seo freelance work from your home, home based jobs, earn from home etc. More details contact at seofreelance.co.in .

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from robert255 wrote 3 years 25 weeks ago

Private home tutoring services for Indian cities - kolkata, siliguri, bardhaman, durgapur, malda, Agartala, Agra, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Aligarh, Allahabad, Amritsar, Aurangabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Dhanbad, Durgapur, Faridabad, Gandhinagar, Goa, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Ranchi, Siliguri, Online tutoring help you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YoungGun1994 wrote 3 years 21 weeks ago

Obama might not be the smartest guy in the world..but at least he's not messing with guns.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YoungGun1994 wrote 3 years 21 weeks ago

Obama might not be the smartest guy in the world..but at least he's not messing with guns.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

When our severely under experienced president went from his perfect little liberal world in Chicago to the Presidency in DC he found out that the vast majority of Americans are not anything like the people who elected him to the Senate. He found out very quickly that most Americans Love guns and become very angry if they even think that there is a chance someone is going to mess with their guns. He does have an anti gun history but you are correct about him not doing anything about it now because if he did that would be just shear stupidity. I trust Obama about as much as I would trust a grizzly.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rabbitpolice88 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

If anybody thinks that Obama is anywhere close to "pro 2nd" than you have another thing coming. He has a record that proves he is not a gun supporter if any of the libs would care to look. I don't believe that I have ever met one socialist that is "pro 2nd".

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Once Obama is voted out of office, he will likely return to his strongly anti-gun politics. Right now he knows he can ill afford to take on such a contentious issue, even within his own party.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

More respect? Maybe it was the communists that he hired that made the decisions? lol

The guy is a disaster for this country. I'm surprised he took the time to sign anything. He didn't even show up to vote most of the time when he was a Senator. The guy is no leader, and can't be trusted on any issue. He's handed out guns to his Democrat Party members in congress asking them to commit political suicide by signing his ObamaCare bill so he can try to save himself.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

I told you it was right wing hype. Obama said "I will do nothing to interfere with American Sporting traditions". He has signed pro gun legislation even! I know the "cons" won't let up on him, 'cause they are spoilsports, but at least some people are realizing that the hype is just that.
However one of the few things still manufactured here is firearms, the hype does sell guns, which is good for the economy, as people always prefer selected lies over uncomfortable truth.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

Haw! OBama does something good for gunners and you guys act disapointed! Proves my point, Obama could do anything and you guys would still hate his guts. Plainly the con dislike for our elected president has nothing to do with gun rights and everything to do with some other more superficial prejudice. Wonder what that could be? Hmmm. Spoilsports.
As far as "black rifles" are concerned, my attitude is simple. You don't use a hammer to drive a screw. You don't use salt water tackle to catch kivvers. There are rifles designed for hunting various species and there are rifles designed for hunting men. While if you have only one rifle, that will be what you hunt with, still there ain't no open season on men (unless you be goin' to the sandbox).
Guns tend to be specialized, I have my Savage 24 for small game, my slug gun for deer, my .45 and my 12 ga pump for intruder alerts. I don't need an AR and I don't see why anybody who isn't in the business of hunting men needs one. My local police department doesn't have an AR, why would I need one. I have no need to outgun the local LEO's.
If you have a need and a good reason to have an AR I see no reason why you shouldn't have one, but I think they are ugly and I can conceive of no scenario whereI actually might need an AR, so I prefer to spend my gun money on arms I might actually enjoy shooting and lookin' at, rather than an ugly piece of black plastic and metal.
In the long run a gun is a gun, it has purpose and an esthetic. I don't need an AR anymore than I need a bayonet mount on my squirrel gun. If you need a bayonet mount on your duck gun then maybe you like the "assault rifle" style. But I never plan to assault anything or any one, that would be premeditation...

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

An AR is problematic when considered for home defense, as it will blow holes right through your house. The shotgun or pistol is a better choice for limiting damage to what you are shooting at. Japanese martial arts have this concept called "Mai" or engaging distance. Every sort of weapon has an engaging distance that that weapon best engages an opponent at. For your hand, that is "issoku itto" or "one step one strike". For a pistol that distance is practically 5 to 15 yards. If you are inside of 5 yards you are too close and outside of 15 yards you'd be wiser to have a shotgun. "Mai" for an AR would (I think) be 50 to 100 yards. I don't know how big your house is, but my house is small, If I shoot an Intruder outside my house, I had better be ready to prove somebody was in mortal danger! Inside my house there is no situation that would put me more than 20 feet from a prospective aggressor. Hence an AR is useless to me. I have semiauto .22s that are fun to plink with, but .223 is far too expensive for plinking with. If I'm hunting, I never take a semi-auto firearm even when I shoot one of my sheep or goats for the freezer I don't use a semi-auto. If I'm only going to shoot one round, why have to clean the more complicated pistol when the old Steven's Tip Up knockoff does the job safely and is faster to clean after.
I admit I still might like an M1 carbine (for my historical collection) and it was certainly a predecessor to the AR in that it fired an "intermediate" cartridge and it was carried by troops in roughly the same role as ARs are today. But in a carbine you have machined steel parts and a wooden stock (echoing the earlier asthetic), While most quality ARs have CNC machined parts the asthetic is still industrial.
As far as the Ferrari, Charger and fast car thing comparason goes is doesn't quite hold. Now if you considered civilian ownership of military vehicles as the paradigm then. I myself own a Jeep, but I don't need an LCAC or even a Bradley. Do you need a Bradley? Some individuals do own obsolete armored vehicles such as Sherman Tanks and other historic vehicles that they restore and drive in parades. I highly approve of such efforts, but do you think such hobbyists are allowed 75mm rounds for the Sherman's gun? Similarly there are numerous companies who run DKUW amphibious trucks in and out of various municiple harbors as tourist conveyances. These are lots of fun and I used to think it would be neat to convert one into some sort of amphibious RV. There is still a civilian mission for the good ole DKUW. Humvees are proven to be such good vehicles that a lot of folks (who can afford the fuel) want 'em. But is there such a civilian "mission" for a MLRS? In Siberia people often use old BMPs to get around the tundra and taiga, but this is often a case of "what is available that might actually be able to function in these wretched conditions" sort of situation. Anybody wanna see folks driving BMP around on the interstates? Imagine taking the whole 9 year old girls soccer team to the field in your bright pink BMP. Think of the smoke from the exhaust and the divots in the soccer field as the BMP pulls up slews around and drops the rear door to deploy the team...Try not to run over anybodies Prius now...

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wlewisiii wrote 4 years 8 weeks ago

This, I'm sure, makes the NRA estatic. They love the status quo as it's the best way for them to fear monger the money out of your pockets.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment