Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Obama pro 2nd Amendment? NOT!!

  1. #1

    Default Obama pro 2nd Amendment? NOT!!

    I know this is a little long, but I want to provide some insights into what we have coming for those of us who don't have the connections themselves. Our lives as we know them are truly on the line. I found this information to be pretty deeply entrenched.

    Would-be appointees quizzed on guns
    Jonathan Martin Jonathan Martin – Thu Nov 20, 5:46 pm ET
    Featured Topics:

    * Barack Obama
    * Presidential Transition

    Rachel Smith, 32, of Richmond, looks over shotguns at the Bob Moates sport shop AP – Rachel Smith, 32, of Richmond, looks over shotguns at the Bob Moates sport shop in Richmond, Va., Thursday, …(Missing photo)

    President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is asking potential appointees detailed questions about gun ownership, and firearms advocates aren’t happy about it.

    The National Rifle Association has denounced the move, which has already led one Republican senator to consider legislation aimed at ensuring a president can’t use an applicant’s gun ownership status to deny employment.

    It’s just one question on a lengthy personnel form — No. 59 on a 63-question list — but the furor over the query is a vivid reminder of the intensity of support for Second Amendment rights and signals the scrutiny Obama is likely to receive from the ever-vigilant gun lobby.

    Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.

    “The intent of the gun question is to determine legal permitting,” said one transition aide.

    But even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question.

    Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

    Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University, said there was no such question for potential appointees when President George W. Bush took office in 2000.

    “It kind of sticks out there like a sore thumb,” Light said.

    He expressed uncertainty over why it was included but surmised it was out of an abundance of caution, a desire to avoid the spectacle of a Cabinet-level or other high-ranking appointee who is discovered to have an unregistered handgun at home.

    “It’s the kind of thing that, if dug out, could be an embarrassment to the president-elect,” Light said.

    Clay Johnson, deputy director of management at the Office of Management and Budget and the head of Bush’s 2000 transition, also didn’t quite understand the purpose of the question.

    “It could be their way to say to prospects that they will have to answer all these questions sooner or later, so be prepared,” Johnson observed.

    Matt Bennett, a veteran campaign operative who did a stint at Americans for Gun Safety and who now works for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way, was equally befuddled.

    “It strikes me as overly lawyerly,” he said, noting that only a small percentage of guns owned by adults are ever used improperly.

    Only half-joking, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) alluded to the shooting accident involving Vice President Dick Cheney, suggesting the query could be a better-safe-than-sorry measure.

    “Given the behavior of the vice president under the last administration, you may want to know these things,” Ryan said.

    On a more serious note, Ryan suggested that the new president was being “very, very thorough” in his approach.

    An Obama ally and pro-gun Democrat from a blue-collar region of Ohio, Ryan dismissed the notion that the inclusion of such a question would do any political harm to the incoming president.

    But other gun rights supporters want Obama to know the question has raised their antennae.

    “It’s very odd and very concerning to put out a question like that,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), adding that it may also be “unprecedented.”

    The freshman senator, who is up for reelection in 2010, had his campaign organization send an e-mail to supporters this week, pledging to enact legislation to bar federal hiring discrimination on the basis of gun ownership.

    “Barack Obama promised change, and this is proof positive that we are going to see some of the most liberal change in our nation’s history,” wrote DeMint’s campaign in the e-mail.

    DeMint conceded it was unrealistic to try to get a bill on the matter through during the lame duck session this week.

    Still, it’s the sort of symbolic issue that may provide a political opening for Republican members of Congress from conservative-leaning states to contrast themselves with the new Democratic administration.

    “I want him to know that we’re looking for areas we can work with him but also looking for areas of concern that we want to let him know we’re going to fight on,” DeMint said.

    The NRA, the gun-rights group that spent millions to defeat Obama, only to see him easily carry sportsmen-heavy states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, is signaling that it intends to keep up the fight.

    “Barack Obama and his administration are showing their true colors and true philosophy with regard to the Second Amendment,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s top political official. “It shows what we’ve been saying all along — this guy doesn’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental constitutional right.”

    Cox said the group had put the word out to their members on the question.

    Bennett, though, argued that approach would have little resonance.

    “The real question is whether he’s doing harm to the broader image of Democrats on guns, and the answer is probably no,” he said. “It may gin up 350,000 hard-core NRA types, but it won’t really bother 65 million other gun owners.”

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,461

    Default Thanks

    Good information MB during a time of required vigilence...I'm not surprised at all. The last comment is particularly interesting to me regarding the perceived difference between those who own guns (stated to be 65m) and those who own guns AND are "hardcore members of the NRA" (stated to be 350k).

    In the months to come gun owners who haven't stood up will need to start standing...they must. The gun owners who voted for the new president will need to draw a line between the reasons that they gave him their vote and his apparent direction to pursue new laws to restrict gun ownership. There are many gun owners who are hesitant to support the NRA for one reason or another. Those who are hesitant now have a responsibility to find an alternative organization who strongly supports our collective rights. IMO inaction is not an option right now, neither is a "wait and see" strategy. I'm not.

  3. #3
    Member 8x57 Mauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southeast Alaska
    Posts
    513

    Thumbs down Say what?

    That's an amazing leap of logic.

    I Googled up a copy of the questionnaire. There's a whole section on filing and paying your taxes. Does that mean Obama is anti-tax?

    There are four questions on domestic help. Does that mean Obama opposes hiring a "housekeeper, babysitter, nanny, or gardener"?

    It asks about moving violations. Does that mean Obama is anti-car?

    Come to think of it, I see the questionnaire asks whether the applicant or a spouse has ever lived abroad. Using this logic, the president-elect opposes foreign travel, international trade, and cross-cultural exchanges. He clearly plans to revoke all passports and shut down study-abroad programs.

    Right at the top of the thing, question two asks whether the applicant is a member of any licensed profession! It asks the status of such licenses!! Just like the gun question!!! Good merciful Heaven protect us - he's out to get more than just Joe the Plumber, he wants to take away the livelihood of every American with a professional license!!!!



    Or perhaps the sky is not really about to fall. Perhaps the transition team is being very cautious about making sure prospective appointees follow the laws on the books and aren't going to distract from the business of government with their personal issues.

  4. #4
    Member ret25yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Unit 13
    Posts
    1,471

    Default

    with any political subject ... the Original Poster should ask a question relating to the information posted ... This will further HELP to keep the subject on topic of the question .

    So the topic: Is this personnel form Obama's way of showing his true colors to the American people

    My answer: No, just an overly cautious question..

    If you cant stand behind the troops in Iraq.. Feel free to stand in front of them.

  5. #5
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    His true color is there for the world to see.

  6. #6

    Default True colors?

    Many are worried about 2nd amendment issue's that "may" arise and 'forms' but also seem oblivious to the real-time issues like congress spending billions on bailout and the wars abroad.


  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Gun ownership is a very important part of the constitution. A president that ignores the constitution scares me.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    505

    Default Alarmist? or Alarmed?

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
    Sure, we should be aware of our President-elect's agenda, but, as 8x57 Mauser pointed out, asking about legal or illegal firearms raises no greater red flag than some of the other questions. I observe that asking about illegal nannies, or whether or not the applicant drinks, drinks to excess or is a tea-totaler is probably a good idea, even if, in other circumstances such questions would be inappropriate. Have you ever owned an exotic or endangered-species pet? Intrusive?, yes. Wise, in today's public climate?, yes.

    How embarrassing would it be to have an Obama appointee who had hired a housekeeper, kidnapped from a refugee camp and smuggled into America, essentially a slave? Pretty embarrassing

    How embarrassing would it be to find an Obama appointee had once participated in a straw purchase? (buying a gun for the pupose of delivering it to someone legally barred from ownership). Pretty embarrassing.

    It is a legitimate screening question? Probably, but it could have been better put as an overarching question like, "Have you ever violated any Federal Law or Regulation?" followed by a checklist including payroll, immigration, firearms, pollution, professional licensing etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by me. But this gives me cause for concern
    provide complete ownership and registration information.
    This discourages believers in privacy from even applying to work in this administration, but clearly targets pro-gun applicants for that discouragement.

    How loudly would democrats have decried a similar question regarding the other privacy/right to access issue of our times, if it had been asked by a McCain/Palin administration to screen potential staff:

    "Have you or any members of your immediate family ever had an abortion? If so, provide complete information about the procedure, by whom it was performed and whether it has been the cause of physical or mental health injuries."

    Note for another post/thread: The lapsed registration part of the question does raise Fifth Amendment concerns. Normal job applications are permitted only to ask about convictions, not require self-incriminating testimony.

    Lost Sheep
    Last edited by Lost Sheep; 11-22-2008 at 15:05. Reason: grammar correction

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,461

    Default Keep the phones lines open...

    As we talk through these important issues, I'm going to try to give members credit beyond the comments that they share in the limited format of our forum. For example, I'm confident that Mauserboy isn't taking a couple of questions from a personnel questionaire and concluding anything based only on those questions. I give him credit that there is a broader context that gives him cause for concern. Similarly, I'm giving 8mm credit that he realizes there is a broader context that concerns MB and many others, but his point reminds us to refrain from illogical and monumental conclusions based solely upon a single piece of information. It's good advice. Furthermore, 8mm reminds us that those who are concerned about future firearm restrictions risk looking like "Chicken Little" running around declaring impending doom.

    Let's keep talking...

    Here's a question: Does anyone doubt that the new political landscape will attempt to enact laws to prohibit sales of what they will call "assault weapons"? Does anyone doubt that we will see that attempt?

    Here's another: Are you comfortable with the government making a determination that a particular firearm has no legitimate purpose in the hands of a law abiding citizen? If you are comfortable with that action, where do you think the government should draw the line for a law abiding citizen?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Good points LostSheep and well presented. Sorry I posted so close to your commentary without giving some space for people to respond. Your post appeared while I was typing.

  11. #11
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    His true color is there for the world to see.

    Care to expound on that?
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    505

    Default Keep the conversation going --- with your representatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post
    Good points LostSheep and well presented. Sorry I posted so close to your commentary without giving some space for people to respond. Your post appeared while I was typing.
    Doc,

    Thanks for the compliment. I try to edit for clarity (and often miss the mark). No apology necessary, none of us knows who else is composing whilst we type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post
    Here's a question: Does anyone doubt that the new political landscape will attempt to enact laws to prohibit sales of what they will call "assault weapons"? Does anyone doubt that we will see that attempt?
    We can only hope that President Obama's tenure will see focus on economic and internation questions before he looks at second amendment/gun control issues.

    Remember, the more support we give the new administration in those areas, the less he/they/it will spend elsewhere. So, support our President in areas where he can do good (rather than ill).

    But, yes there are many who will try to enact laws restricting individuals rights to own guns and will employ rhetoric and re-defining terminology to obscure the debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post
    Here's another: Are you comfortable with the government making a determination that a particular firearm has no legitimate purpose in the hands of a law abiding citizen? If you are comfortable with that action, where do you think the government should draw the line for a law abiding citizen?
    OK, now I am on my soapbox. (But I will try to keep it short, ha!).

    I don't think the government should make any determination at all, ever. Well, maybe "area" weapons, OK. But an argument could be made for Claymoor mines, even.

    The second amendment was written by men who deemed it necessary for to take up arms against their own government. I wish they had framed that notion more clearly in the amendment. That way the debate over, "The second amendment ain't about hunting." would be over. To my mind, it is about self-defense and particularly about self-defense against a government run amok. (yes the spelling is correct and I use the word because of the legitimacy of the argument from the other side that calls upon images of Columbine, et al see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok, but I digress.)

    Remember also that when the Continental Army was disbanded and was still owed back pay, the soldiers (still armed) surrounded the houses of Congress until they appropriated money for what was owed. Our government forgot the First Amendment (in particular, the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances) and was reminded of it under the provisions of the Second Amendment. (Historians among us can tell me if the Bill of Rights was enacted at that point, but since the rights are considered inalienable, the date of enactment is academic. They existed; the People exercised them.)

    I am grateful that our government has matured past the willingness to violate its contractual obligations. But the Second Amendment and its implied right of the citizenry to organize its (armed) individuals to enforce the constitution ("When in the course of human events...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..." the inalienable rights referenced in the Declaration of Independence from which the foregoing words were clipped), has been a part of that maturation.

    Such talk frightens participants in what has been derisively called "the nanny state", and even gives me pause. These are serious thoughts, not to be taken lightly. And not to be discarded lightly, either.

    Take heed, (soon to be) President Obama. Your campaign showed you to be a thoughtful, intelligent man not given to inflammatory rhetoric. Your reputation is one of a man who listens to differing viewpoints. I pray that your screening questions will not limit the range of those viewpoints you will be able to hear.

    As a constituency, we should all write letters to our Representatives and our President (not form letters, either) make phone calls, attend meetings and support interim candidates that will be heard.

    For those of us who believe the Second Amendment ratifies an individual right, we must also believe that the Second Amendment names us each of us de facto part of a militia in support of the principles of the Constitution.

    I yield my soapbox now.

    Lost Sheep

  13. #13
    Member Bear Buster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Take heed, (soon to be) President Obama. Your campaign showed you to be a thoughtful, intelligent man not given to inflammatory rhetoric. Your reputation is one of a man who listens to differing viewpoints. I pray that your screening questions will not limit the range of those viewpoints you will be able to hear.
    But willing to talk with terrorist without PRE-conditions ironic!
    "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    505

    Default History of gun control?

    You know? The gun registration laws of Nazi Germany were considered to be a model of civilisation and a key to domestic peace and tranquility. Then came Kristallnact.

    After the American Civil War, some of the first "Jim Crow" laws enacted were laws designed keep privately owned firearms out of the hands of the "freedmen".

    Where does President-elect Obama stand on that issue? More to the point, how does he feel about these historical facts?

    These are questions I would suspect were asked when he ran for the Senate, but I have no knowledge that they were ever asked, or answered. I don't know. Anyone have any quotes from the horse's mouth?

    Lost Sheep

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Gun ownership is a very important part of the constitution. A president that ignores the constitution scares me.
    Ummmm....George Bush doesn't scare you when he "ignores" the constitution but the next president does??

    I did not know the constitution had insignificant 'parts'.


  16. #16
    Member Bear Buster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA
    Posts
    461

    Default

    This should give you an idea:
    http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...gunlaws_il.htm

    P.S. Here we go GEORGE BUSH BASHERS are out.....can't have a discussion without it
    "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #17
    Member nategr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Ummmm....George Bush doesn't scare you when he "ignores" the constitution but the next president does??

    I did not know the constitution had insignificant 'parts'.

    Hows that Av?

  18. #18
    Member nategr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    George Bush and company do scare me when they authorize 1 tril. to cover bad business loans. Should have let them fail.

  19. #19
    Member nategr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Sheep View Post
    Anyone have any quotes from the horse's mouth?

    Lost Sheep



    heres a start

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8fAROhy8k0

  20. #20
    Member Bear Buster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Interesting perspective on where we're heading with this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQX7Awjui40&NR=1
    "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •