BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[moderator]

Full Story:

NSSF Asks Obama Where He Stands on Gun Ownership

Please use this area to post comments or questions about this news item.

[Whelland]

The part I found most interesting was as follows:

"The decision by NSSF to send Sen. Obama the letter stems from the candidate's recent remarks in which he noted his agreement that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, a statement that is in seemingly stark contrast to his support for banning the civilian ownership of handguns, a position he took as an Illinois state senator, and to his position supporting the D.C. gun ban."

It's really not suprising that he hasn't commented yet. He'll need to put a lot of thought into this one. You know, before he figures out a way to explain this flip flop, and appear more of a middle of the road, main stream American, instead of the far left liberal that he really is. But then again, I DID look at his voting record to find the truth. Therefore, this came as nothing new to me.

[jfrench]

He won't respond.

[Whelland]

You're probably right jfrench.

[WesternHunter]

I thought I'd heard something on one of our radio sations (850 KOA) where they said Obama wanted to institute a "civilian" Military in adition to our regular military. I guess Obama knows that the military can't constitutionaly be used against civilian citizens. The only thing I can think of is that this is Obama's way around the Constitution to use a "civilian" military to round up all our legally owned weapons and disarm America. A candidates voting record speaks volumes about his/her intents. Stop listening to candidates, just go to votesmart.com to find the truth about them.

[civetcat]

I had mixed thoughts about the whole supreme court decision and the affects it would have on gun rights.

For one it let Obama off the hook as far as having to dicuss it as a campaign issue. Now he can just say, "I agree" as he did, and there's no more to talk about.

For another it hasn't changed the laws on the ground much at all.

And third by handing down a liberal interpretation of the constituion the supremes might have made it easier for another supreme court to change the law back the other way. By liberal I mean not a strict construcionist view, not liberal in the usual political sense.

I'll leave it for the constitutional scholars to study in the years to come.

[bitmasher]

Jfrench is right; he won't respond because he doesn't have too.