This is at a gathering of handpicked Obama supporters in Pennsylvania:
A woman in the crowd [in Duryea, PA] told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’
So he is suddenly someone who doesn’t want to take away guns but he does qualify that with the fact that if he did flip-flop, as he has been known to do, he has concluded he doesn’t have the votes so that shouldn’t be the reason not to vote for him.
Sound about right? Oh, maybe he didn’t flip-flop….maybe it was everyone else’s fault:
The case for Barack Obama’s consistency about the DC gun law rests on the following argument. (a) A spokesman gave an incorrect statement on whether Obama supported the DC law. (b) several questionnaires got it wrong — including one with Obama’s handwriting on it. (c) When Obama responded to CNN’s Leon Harris, who had just asked him, ” You said in Idaho recently, I’m quoting here, ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.’ But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional?…How can you reconcile those two different positions?” and Obama said: “Right, right.” — he was simply acknowledging the question, and for some reason, did not correct Harris in his answer, and (d) has always favored the right of locales to regulate handguns and (e) had never publicly opposed the DC law.
He can try to dance his way out of the box he created all he wants, no one believes it. He’s a liberal who hasn’t seen a gun control law he didn’t like and if he had concluded he did have the votes, he would do it in a heartbeat.
See author page
Will he throw away our flags and replace them with the O logo like he did on his campaign plane?
PHOTO…Democrats Love of Country
So HE’S not going to take our guns away. How terribly kind and accomodating of him. I guess that Supreme Court ruling thing was just sort of, you know, well maybe that might be important, sort of too. But knowest thou this: I, The One, will kindly allow you to keep your guns. And that is, after all, the only thing that really matters. How can even hand picked lackeys keep from laughing in this arrogant little clowns face!
After several months of Obama’s “campaigning,” the look and feel of his changing positions is clear. On the issue of the surge in Iraq, he has acquiesced, but in this fashion — he has remained steadfast in his stubbornness saying that, having it to do over again, he would still oppose the surge.
With gun control, Obama has stated that he believed limits on gun ownership were constitutional — even in cases of self defense. Now, because of political expedience, and the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Obama says he had always believed that the second amendment to our Constitution was an individual right.
But does Mr. Obama, as with the surge, still harbor the idea that, given another try, he would seek to declare somehow that gun ownership for the sake of self-defense is not an individual right?
In Mr. Obama’s flip-flop style of things, we must always keep in mind, 1) Mr. Obama’s politics, based on his own and his radical communist mentors’ ideologies, are extremely left-wing; and, 2) that only due to his political expediency does Mr. Obama straddle the issues — especially gun control. Deep inside Obama’s mind is, no doubt, the idea that government must limit gun ownership.
The communist manifesto is adamant about removing guns from the citizenry. Obama’s political ideology is in direct opposition to the mandates of our Constitution — and he knows it. The socialist goal is not the defense of our Constitution and freedoms; but rather the suppression of our rights.
Proof? Associated Content, on March 4, 2008, reported, “In 2000, Barak Obama cosponsored a bill that would have limited the purchase of handguns to one per month. That may not sound significant, but the truth is, such a bill would impede the rights of law abiding citizens. There is no justifiable reason to limit the ability of people who have no criminal record from purchasing any legal fire arm. Obama at the same time also voted against allowing people to violate local fire arms bans even in the case of self protection. What does that mean in application? Criminals who are already breaking the law have nothing to worry about, because Obama has made sure that law abiding citizens cannot carry a weapon to protect themselves against those criminals.”
Complete article here: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/630645/barak_obamas_gun_control_positions.html
Make no mistake. Knowing what we know about the style of and reasons for Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s flip-flops, we would be well advised to steer clear of him. But better yet, if each of us could alert 10 family members and/or friends and then ask them to alert 10 others — and so on, this grass-roots effort will grow to inform tens of millions of the danger Mr. Obama truly represents to American freedoms and values.
If you have not already read my warning, please take the time now — all of the information presented is factual and may be verified:
Article: Barack Hussein Obama as a national security risk — a clear and present danger.
http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=43
May God bless America and our Constitution, as envisioned by the founders of the United States.
My daddy has a saying about liberals, it goes, ” Do you know how to tell if a liberal is lying, their lips are moving”. This is how I know Obama will, is going to, and will definatly try to take away our guns. He will have enough votes, and he will try.
Oh, so you’ve thought about it.
Many Pennsylvanians do “cling to their guns” the same way the the NOW/NARAL crew cling to their “abortion rights.”
The argument that Obama gave could equally be used for the abortion issue by any pro-life candidate, so why the hell is Obama The argument that Obama gave could equally be used for the abortion issue by any pro-life candidate, so why the hell is Obama running “abortion rights” commercials ?
It’s because he knows it’s lame argument .. things can change.
You’d think the manchild of “Hope and Change” would know that.
The voters here in Pennsylvania do.
Obama really wounded himself in Pennsylvania with his remarks about people clinging to guns. But then he is a Chicago politician, where non-criminal gun owners are held in the same high regard as chitterling salesmen are in Mecca. It is natural he show contempt for those he has contempt.
One very disturbing fact is that he was one of the few senators who voted against a law allowing people who had used a handgun to defend against an intruder to assert self-defense as a legal defense against prosecution for violating local handgun bans. This law was passed in response to the village of Wilmette prosecuting Hale DeMar for violating the handgun ban; Hale DeMar had shot an intruder with a handgun.