Obama's gun control deception

By Josh Painter Posted in Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Casual visitors to Barack Obama's website might be misled about the position on gun control held by the U.S. Senate's most liberal member - that is, if they can even find it. One has to first click on "Issues" - then on "Additional Issues" - and then on "Sportsmen" to locate it. Even then, one gets this rather nebulous paragraph:

Barack Obama did not grow up hunting and fishing, but he recognizes the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport. Were it not for America’s hunters and anglers, including the great icons like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, our nation would not have the tradition of sound game management, a system of ethical, science-based game laws and an extensive public lands estate on which to pursue the sport. Obama recognizes that we must forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America’s hunters and anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition.

Below this section of political doublespeak is yet another hyperlink one must click on to "Read the full plan" - in which we finally see yet another paragraph falsely labelled "PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS":

Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.

That last sentence is the kicker. Just what constitutes "reasonable and just commonsense regulation" is, of course, different things to different people. For the liberal, it usually means extremely intrusive government control of the citizens' firearms. More on this in a moment, but first consider that Obama and his team have pushed gun control to the bottom of their site's "Issues" menu, and grouped it under the topic of "Additional Issues" along with such other items as "Arts" and "Transportation" - hardly a place of promenence for a right that the founders felt deserved its own constitutional amendment. This perceived unimportance of firarms-related issues is a big clue about how the Obama campaign views the right to keep and bear arms, and it is but one source of the inexperienced junior Senator's problem with America's millions of gun owners - or, rather, their problem with him.

That Obama, "a former constitutional law professor" - brags his website, sees gun rights as a hunting and shooting sports issue reveals a lack of understanding of the fundamental reason the founders sought to guarantee these rights in the first place. As the NRA's John Sigler points out, "The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting." But most firearms owners already knew that. Alan Keyes explains:

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

When we dig into Barack Obama's record of votes, other actions and public statements on gun control, we learn that he isn't so much about "protecting gun rights" as he is about trying to constrain those same rights.

According to a Kenneth Vogel article on Politico:

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

For gun owners and RKBA advocates, this isn't exactly a good start for Obama. It gets worse.

The Associated Press, in a story about how Obama's far-left voting record is a gold mine for his critics, reported that:

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

Now I know that I'm a second amendment absolutist, and that liberals who don't get the reason the founders put that amendment in the Bill of Rights will view me as a right-wing gun nut. But does anyone else see the act of voting to prevent a homeowner from proteting his or her family and property while in his or her own home is more than just a little extereme?

Next we have Obama's remark to a gathering of wealthy San Francisco liberal elites, spoken without the knowledge that it was actually being recorded:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama and his campaign have desperately tried to spin their way out of that one, but as Bill Clinton, himself a master of spin, was fond of saying, "That dog don't hunt."

Like he does on so many other issues, Obama attempts to hide his liberal gun control beliefs behind phony, moderate-sounding rhetoric that is intended to pull the wool over the eyes of a largely unsuspecting electorate. Fortunately, those who see gun ownership as a bulwark against some possible future tyranny from our own federal government aren't falling for the deception.

John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, relates this chilling encounter in an opinion piece dealing with a questionnaire Obama and/or his staff answered for the Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI):

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

If taken literally, Obama’s statement to me was closer to what the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating that Obama's bans would extend well beyond handguns.

Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

“I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns,” bottom-lines Barack Obama's true feelings about gun control. I'm not the only one who finds this Obama guy extremist-scary.

National Rifle Association president John Sigler, in a scathing column in the NRA's Official Journal, sees Obama as a genuine and serious threat to freedom:

Barack Obama’s position is even more anti-gun than the District of Columbia’s! Obama’s record is clear—his concept of “hope and change” will surely result in anti-gun/anti-freedom changes bringing more hopelessness for the most helpless in our society.

Now is the time to act! Every gun owner in America must be alerted to Obama’s record. Please, tear out this page, copy it and distribute it to fellow gun owners, hunters, shooters, family and friends. Spread the word and get ready for the most important election battle of our lifetime.

Amen, Mr. Sigler. Amen.

- JP

"But does anyone else see the act of voting to prevent a homeowner from proteting his or her family and property while in his or her own home is more than just a little extereme?"

No question, you are with the majority here I am sure. If this guy is elected, I'm definitely going to get a FOID card.

For anybody not aware, here is background on the Chicago-area man who ran afoul of the law by not keeping his FOID card up to date. Note that the burglar had returned to the man's home after stealing his keys and vehicle the day before.


I'm the next county over from Cook Co., and this was all over local talk radio. Residents of Chicago can rest secure with Mayor Daley's handgun ban. Note that murders in Chicago are sharply up.


Obama's anti-gun, anti-self defense record needs to be publicized. Fortunately it sounds like the word is getting out.

Hope and change. I HOPE I survive when my right to defend myself CHANGES.

definitely are up against it. Some are comparing the increase in murder to Iraq-like violence. I wouldn't make that comparison, myself.

However, from this report, it sounds like people in some neighborhoods can look out their window and see police in battle array on the street on weekends.

Chicago has seen a 9% increase in the murder rate so far this year. How is it possible, since it is illegal for any criminal to own or carry a gun, as well as it is illegal for law-abiding citizens to own a hand gun or assault rifle within Chicago?


for criminals to illegally own guns because they buy them on the black market. For example, if I was a criminal that was going to commit a bank robbery, why would I care if I had broken some stupid gun ban or had illegally purchased a firearm?
"That's funny, because I can see him eating her liver with some falafel and a nice hot tea." - kyle8

BTW, there is a Charles Bronson marathon on AMC today.....


This guy just moved there and did not have time to register (phew!) his handgun before his house was invaded and he found an intruder in his son's bedroom. The good guy shot the slime ball and of course went to Rikers Island for a "weapons violation"



Molon Labe!

with any society that sends people to jail for defending themselves and their families against intruders.
"That's funny, because I can see him eating her liver with some falafel and a nice hot tea." - kyle8

who let his FOID get out of date, had his home burglarized, his keys and car stolen and the next night the burglar returned while the man was home with his family upstairs.

So, what the heck was the homeowner supposed to do, pour a cocktail and offer the man some snacks?

And, and, the snooty North Shore communities are just inviting burglars to become this brazen with their assinine gun control!


I'm not sure about anywhere else but the 'Militia' in Maine which was a part of Massachusetts in the 1770s was any male who could shoot a rifle! Currently in Maine's Revised Statutes the Milita (or State Guard)is defined as:

Each citizen who is more than 18 years of age and less than 45 years of age, unless exempted by order of the Governor, who is a resident of this State, shall, whenever the Governor deems it necessary, be enrolled with the militia. - Title 37-B, §225

Please note: The 'Maine State Guard' (i.e. the militia) is a distinct organization from the Maine National Guard!

A person may not become a member of the Maine State Guard, if he is a member of the National Guard or any component of the United States Armed Forces, active or reserve. - Title 37-B, §224

I'm still researching now, but I remember reading that in the original 1820 era laws that anyone who was called onto the militia was to furnish his own weapon and 100 rounds of ammunition!

I've always fantasized about being the governor and actually activating the militia, just to see everyone's reaction!!!

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

....the questionaire in which he advocated a ban on the sale and manufacture of handguns in his own handwriting.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

It recognizes the right we have inherently, by virtue of drawing breath, to defend that breath and the freedom of our countrymen against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Or, supposed "gun rights" & "hunter's right's" groups who are front groups for the gun-ban crowd. In this vein, I give you the ASHA - American "Shooters" and "Hunters" Association. Founded by gun ban folks, for foisting the lie of "reasonable restrictions." They are like the Veterans groups against the way - flimsy facades, trying to fool as many gullible into thinking they're for real.

Keep your powder dry Boys!!

flat out says he favors a "ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." Handguns are semi-automatic weapons. It's a ban on pistols.


He also favors a Federal Ban on Carrying a Concealed Weapon. He flat out says it on CNN's website.


There is no deception. He is telling us and if we don't stop him, he can rightly say we were warned.

Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

His position on every issue is "Yes ... but NFW."
Nuclear power: Yes we need to look at all option but NFW will I approve anything to do with building new plants or disposing of waste.
Guns: Yes I respect the second amendment but NFW will I support anything that protects those rights.
Abortion: Yes I want abortions to be rare, but NFW will I support any law that has any restrictions and NFW will I appoint any judge unless I know he/she has 100% NARAL support.
Immigration: Yes we need to protect our borders but NFW will I support anything related to increased enforcement or fencing.

You can pretty much find a "Yes ... but NFW" angle on every issue. I'm sure we'll see the GOP and McCain pointing out this fall how he likes to try to have everything both ways. Let's hope the average voter learns to see through it. Why is it that liberals try to hide that they are liberal?

The average Joe with his 6 pack and his TV remote is too busy watching American Idol to keep up with the real stands of these politicians.

The folks who hang out on RS are really way above the norm in keeping up with issues. Pat yourself on the back.

The average American would not vote for a candidate if the candidate stood up and said "I will dismantle the constitution and install a Marxist government."

Joe gets his impression of the candidates from Dan Rather in sound bites which are sterilized to make them sound reasonable.
Hence liberals do not want the public to figure out where they really stand until it is too late. Nothing new here. It worked famously in 1938 Germany.

Recall the first thing the Soviets do when they invade a country,(for example Soviet Georgia) is to collect every hunting rifle, every firearm in they can find. Reminds me of Feinstien "If I had enough votes it would be 'Turn them in Mr and Mrs Amerika' every one"

Once armed resistance is not an option the atrocities could commence , unopposed.

Liberal is a whitewashed term for socialist, socialist is a whitewashed term for Marxist. Barbar and Hill are basically cut from the same cloth.

Now, off my soapbox....


555 by dglenn

"That's funny, because I can see him eating her liver with some falafel and a nice hot tea." - kyle8

Issue will be ramped up after the SCOTUS decision next month, regardless of the way the decision goes.

For once we will have a popular conservative position on an issue that our candidate actually agrees with! We'll have to hit it hard!

if SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd amendment.
"That's funny, because I can see him eating her liver with some falafel and a nice hot tea." - kyle8

The only question is which side will the Court be on.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service