Obama: I couldn’t take your guns even if I wanted to
posted at 1:30 pm on September 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I tried to ignore this but people are e-mailing about it as evidence that The One admits he wants to ban guns but simply lacks the political leverage to do so. Really?
A woman in the crowd 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.’’
As I read it, he’s making a simple rhetorical point to try to moot gun owners’ paranoia, like McCain telling a group of pro-choice voters, “I’m not going to issue a decree banning abortion. Even if I wanted to, I lack the constitutional authority.” Translation: If you’re unwilling to take me in good faith, at least recognize that it’s stupid to let your vote turn on the issue given the political reality of the situation. If this is some kind of Freudian slip pregnant with secret intent, how does it jibe with 18 months’ worth of notoriously weaselly statements on the subject? He keeps his rhetoric cautious because he’s actually deathly afraid of offending gun owners in swing states; hence his repeated trumpeting of the rights of hunters and “sportsmen” to own guns even while pandering to his base by questioning the rights of city dwellers — although not questioning them so sharply that he couldn’t conveniently flip-flop on the D.C. gun ban after the Heller decision came down. Is the suggestion that he’s now let his guard down just two months before the election? Or is it that he’s going to throw electoral caution to the wind once in office and push for some sort of Second Amendment rollback with his deep blue Congress, thereby handing the GOP a killer wedge issue on a silver platter? I don’t get it.
Update (Ed): My take on this is that Obama was trying too hard to convince people and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, in a rhetorical sense. All he needed was a categorical denial, and he should have left it at that. If he wanted to make the “I don’t have enough votes” argument — a really stupid argument in a year where Democrats are campaigning for veto-proof majorities — he should have led off with that strictly as a hypothetical, rather than using it as an encore.
Now, he’s left it ambiguous, with the notion that the only thing holding him back is a lack of votes on the floors of Congress. Is that accurate? Maybe not, but it was Obama’s own argument, and he has to answer for it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Well Joe Biden was in Philadelphia yesterday saying that “Education is part of National Security”
Make of that what you will.
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 1:32 PM
So maybe I should call in to work?
(I usually miss the start of the big gun posts.)
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Had to find the Biden article
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM
He won’t take away our rights to own guns….his Supreme Court picks will do it for him.
Lying piece of garbage.
John Doe on September 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM
And of course Bill Clinton couldn’t sexually harass women even if he wanted to. “It’s against the law.”
RBMN on September 6, 2008 at 1:34 PM
If he’s elected, I’ll immediately buy another firearm.
The only remaining question would be… M4, or .38 Super?
(To go with my Colt .45 Auto)
knob on September 6, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I’m really irritated by the paranoid gun owners!/
wise_man on September 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I guess if you combine the Biden and Obama remarks taking away guns and giving you books improves national security.
BTW I have seen speechs of Obama calling for gun bans in Chicago. He walks the line very carefully
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I’d love to see Barry try to take Sarah’Cuda’s guns away.
ManlyRash on September 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Don’t be absurd. They aren’t paranoid…just bitter. And clingy. /s
ManlyRash on September 6, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Sounds like reasoning for a spilt government to me. Grid-lock: Obama’s perscription for governing.
Only the only way to get that this year is McCain. So is that an endorsement?
I’m actually not a radical on guns. Guns to inner city dwellers have a different meaning than to rural folks…
But I do think that it is playing with fire to give up any right at all. Especially, as ingrained in the American identity as gun ownership. I don’t want to go down that road.
petunia on September 6, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Here is an audio clip with John Lott on the Roger Hedgecock radio show.
Lott talk about how he knew Obama in Chicago and Obama told him that no one should be able to own guns.
The Lott interview starts after the half-way point in the audio clip.
Link
Please Listen and then tell your friends.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Obama says that he “just wants to keep AK-47’s out of the hands of criminals.”
Cool. I can’t wait for him to get elected so I can get one.
sarcasm//off
__________
RJGatorEsq. on September 6, 2008 at 1:39 PM
As a NRA member I will quote our one time leader. “From my cold, dead hand!”
Heston was a great man!!!
azcop on September 6, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Remember New Orleans.
I’m sure those citizens thought their guns would never be taken away either.
Yakko77 on September 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I posted this comment at Bob Owen’s site:
I have no doubt Obama would ban and confiscate all guns if he could (see links below), but I don’t see this exchange as proof. It’s a law professor’s answer (or in his case, a senior lecturer’s answer). He’s conceding the premise in incremental steps and making the argument that “it’s still no reason not to vote for me.” Now it is a stupid approach and no doubt you could make the argument that he adopted the premise too easily thereby showing his true colors.
OTH, John Lott recently recounted his personal conversation with Obama when they were University of Chicago Law faculty colleagues, where Obama told Lott: “I don’t think people should be able to own guns.” Taken together with his earlier statements about gun bans, I think your conclusion is correct.
Mark Levin Link
Steve Malzburg Link
capitano on September 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Thanks Barry keep bleeding voters….you just generated negative coattails anywhere a donk is trying to unseat a conservative…..
as to my guns anyone wanting them merely need visit.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I don’t even care if he wants to take people’s guns or not; he’s THE ONE, the new Messiah, the new Prophet (PBUH); if he’s stupid enough to phrase it this way (and he IS stupid, make no doubt about it; it’s one of the greatest con jobs in history that this guy is “smart”); and thus be “misunderstood”; all the more better as far as I’m concerned!
Dale in Atlanta on September 6, 2008 at 1:42 PM
dentalque on September 6, 2008 at 1:43 PM
There. Fixed that for you, Barry.
Blacksheep on September 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Why do I care whether Barack Obama “respects” gun ownership; What is he going to DO about it?
Just saying that he doesn’t currently have the power to personally and instantly repeal the Constitution is a very different thing from making clear how he is going to – as a President’s oath requires – DEFEND the Constitution.
logis on September 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM
“I don’t have the votes” (right now)
And you can damn well bet that when I do have the necessary votes, those guns will be GONE.
GarandFan on September 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM
He won’t take away our rights to own guns….his Supreme Court picks will do it for him.
Lying piece of garbage.
John Doe on September 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM
……….Bingo!
try again later on September 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM
look, this is simple. duh1 is a marxist/collectivist, his record clearly speaks of it. what do those folks do? they disarm the citizenry [his IL leg. record supports this as well]. now that he has to try to get elected in [at least] 30-some states and not just [a rather blue] one, he has no choice but to pander. he may mean 90% of what he says [btw he actually sounded articulate W/O the teleprompter for once!], but then at the very end he TELLS on himself with the lament “nah, even my party leg. has a bunch of those 2a supporters in there — bummer huh?”
/he’s just an asshat, and on an issue he could have put to bed, he FAILS to — yet again …
Buckaroo on September 6, 2008 at 1:46 PM
obama on guns 2004
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Obama is stupid. Period.
Try this: “I’m not in favor of legislation to chop up Grandmothers and serve them in a stew! And even if I did, I don’t have the votes!”
huh????
PackerBronco on September 6, 2008 at 1:46 PM
What the hell does that mean? He likes to watch Bonanza?
RedWinged Blackbird on September 6, 2008 at 1:47 PM
johnrlott.tripod.com
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 1:47 PM
BTW he makes that same reference in the video. That the government can take guns but it would be challenged via the 2nd amendment. He does however come out against assault weapons in the video
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Spirit of 1776 on September 6, 2008 at 1:48 PM
This is not the proof that Obama wants to take away your guns. The proof that Obama wants to take away your guns is the fact that he’s a Democrat.
Maxx on September 6, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Not playing on my Mac.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I’ve reached the point where I don’t believe ANYTHING that comes out of this idiot’s piehole. He’ll say anything to get the votes.
UnEasyRider on September 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Whew….sure glad I recently dipped into savings and bought a couple more! You just can never have too many weapons nor too much ammunition! :) There’s lots of weasels running about these days!
Hey…..what is that smell? Yew…can you smell it too? It’s horrid, good lord what is that stink??
STONE COLD FEAR!
dustoffmom on September 6, 2008 at 1:52 PM
” I couldn’t take your guns, I don’t have the votes…”
Unless there is a really big win for the Dems in the Senate and House….
If I was the RNC, I’d run this Nationaly, for the CONGRESSIONAL races.
Romeo13 on September 6, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Allah, what sort of expert on Constitutional Law (BHO) explains potential gun bans in this way, especially given Heller? The votes in Congress for what?
progressoverpeace on September 6, 2008 at 1:53 PM
No, Sir.
I’m from Kentucky and most of the Dems here are Pro-Gun.
The proof that 0 is Anti-Gun is the fact that He worked his way up thru the Chicago political machine.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Everytime Obama opens his uh..ah..ah trap…he’s loading Sarah’Cuda up for bear.
John Doe on September 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I’m utterly convinced that many liberals do not comprehend simple logic.
The clear message of Obama’s statements are: “You’re probably correct to worry about my position on this topic. But – I can’t get what I want due to votes in Congress.”
What he failed to add was “now” – and with good reason!
Following any election, it could be possible that Obama would have the votes. Or, that he would appoint Justices who would have the votes.
Only a strong statement that Obama himself supports gun rights would – and should – alleviate the worries of these voters.
And – surprise, surprise. Obama cannot seem to utter that expression.
Perhaps Obama understands logic a bit better than I realized at first….
pbundy on September 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM
he knew they were sportsmen how?? oh i bet they were wearing camo and caps w/ a “Mack” logo on them.
chasdal on September 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM
A funny image just popped into my mind.
Obama succeeds in grabbing our guns…
He and his acolytes are in a room, perplexed looks on their faces, a pile of our guns at their feet.
Uh-bam-uh: “So, these are guns, huh?”
Acolyte: “Yup, wonder how they work.”
Uh-bam-uh: “I dunno, my teleprompter doesn’t say anything about that.”
Montana on September 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM
evidently to either push for a cessation of production….
Colt is out of the handgun business cmpared to the old days, draconian corporate liability laws, outlawing ammo production, when they think no one is listening the democrats are very honest in their desire to kill private weapons…
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 1:55 PM
The bottom line is that the president doesn’t have the unilateral authority to do 99.9% of the things this dolt is promising. He may not know this so please . . . somebody inform him that the legislative branch makes laws and appropriates and authorizes public funds. This guy is a snake oil salesman that’s trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the mindless masses . . . and so far he’s done a pretty good job it.
rplat on September 6, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Too bad our mainsream media doesn’t see their role the same way as this teacher.
ctmom on September 6, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Sure. We all expect attacks on the 2nd amendment from the periphery, now, but I would think that a Constitutional Law scholar would just point out Heller – the ZERO must have talking points about Heller at the ready. But to make it sound as if Congress could really put a “ban” in is just kind of weird.
progressoverpeace on September 6, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Sarah’Cuda should offer to teach Obama how to uh… ah..ah..how to properly shoot and handle a gun. I’m sure it’s a little different than the squirt gun he grew up with.
John Doe on September 6, 2008 at 1:59 PM
There is something a little disturbing about a Presidential wannabe trying to offer reassurance by telling people that he can’t do something because he doesn’t have the votes in Congress. It’s not really how you want people thinking about you, about the things you would do if you could but you won’t because you can’t. How many other things would he do if he only could? And will do once he can?
Bennett on September 6, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Wink, wink, nod, nod, to governors and mayors: I won’t send my justice department after you if you make it impossible for people to get NEW guns. They may be able to keep the ones they have, but don’t let them get new ones. Remember DC?
TimothyJ on September 6, 2008 at 1:59 PM
It means he’ll let us keep the guns. He’ll just outlaw bullets.
dinobalz on September 6, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I guess for Gun Control Obama votes “Present”
try this
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 1:59 PM
He does not think before he speaks. Obamination thinks that uttering more words or stretching sentences or thoughts would somehow elevate his status as a leader. The left always say President Bush is an idiot and can’t speak. It is often better to just be a man of few words than a man full of gaffes.
jencab on September 6, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Let’s face it, Obama is the reality version of Dr. Raymond Cocteau. Anyone who’s seen Demolition Man will know what I mean.
john1schn on September 6, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Pelosi did the same thing with illegal drugs when she was asked that on CNN. She told a questioner that She didnt have the votes to get drugs make legal but they were “Working little by little” to change that.
William Amos on September 6, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Honestly, we’ve never had a metrosexual be President. I don’t think he can nearly pull this off– for that reason alone.
JiangxiDad on September 6, 2008 at 2:02 PM
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I am somehow being irresponsible by not owning a firearm.
Certainly, they are one of the great advances of civilization, possibly even a prerequisite for real democracy. They are equalizers of force, stealing the invulnerability of tyrants.
If you think about it, the most evil things are not those that can do the most damage, but those that are the most invulnerable.
Count to 10 on September 6, 2008 at 2:03 PM
If that’s true, I’m glad to hear it. But it seems to me that every time a bill comes up in congress to ban guns its always being pushed by the Democrats and mostly the Democrats vote for it. Democrats are generally anti-gun. A vote for a Democrat is generally a vote against guns, that’s a fact.
Maxx on September 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM
MSNBC Democratic Debate From Nevada – 1/15/08
0bama at 4:36/9:55
LINK
Then He goes off about gun traces, which will set me off on a Tangent.
Remember The White Power Crew that got arrested in Denver?
On the first day the story on them said that one of their guns was stolen in Kansas.
That proves the Lie that 0bama/Bloomberg are pushing on Gun tracing. (tangent over ya gotta watch all the angles.)
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Can they pass a law to tax ammunition so much as to make it nearly impossible to buy?
At least that’s my husband’s justification for stockpiling.
tru2tx on September 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM
OT: Flags are being passed out in Colorado now before McCain/Palin speech.
tru2tx on September 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM
The problem here isn’t neccessarily that Obama doesn’t like guns. Wish he did…I keep my glock 23 with me everywhere I go and a Makarov in my nightstand…I DARE you to break into my house:) But, I digress. The real issue is that Obama is not a Constitutionalist. This is a right directly and explicitly afforded to citizens in our CONSTITUTION!! So, basically by saying he would take them away if he could, he is saying “I’d violate the constitution if I could get away with it.”
bethany on September 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I just got off the phone with an NRA fundraiser. Pretending to be a survey, but hitting me up afterwards for seventy five bucks. I love the NRA, but they drive me crazy with this stuff.
Anyway, the survey was all about whether it upset me to be called a bitter clinger, and so on. They’re milking Olbama for all they can get. Heh.
S. Weasel on September 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM
You nailed it. Obama didn’t say he understood and respected the Constitution, he said he didn’t have the votes. Big difference, shows him as a gun grabber no doubt.
Maxx on September 6, 2008 at 2:11 PM
A correct statement would be: To be a big name D at the National level (with control of the party) you need to be a gun banner.
(I once saw an interview with Sarah Brady, around 2004, where she said she was happy with all the Ds running except Howard Dean.)
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
From reading my NRA mag in the past year there is no doubt in my mind that Obama and his ilk will take our guns if they can. Why take the chance?
rivlax on September 6, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Bill Clinton was the best gun salesman in the world.
Was there going to be an “s” after that slash?
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:16 PM
The politician doth protest too much?
Disturb the Universe on September 6, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Of course, if an Republican had made a similar statement, the cut-n-paste media would have reported it as:
A precise quote, no?
ynot4tony2 on September 6, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Just look to Obama’s past statements and Biden’s past work in congress. They would be an anti-gun tag-team. If you wait until they are elected, expect to pay more for those guns and the ammunition – while you can still get them. I plan to buy early and often.
At the same time, the last guy that tried to take my gun lost “Lefty” in the process. I’m very clingy.
Mini14 on September 6, 2008 at 2:23 PM
What he meant.
Disturb the Universe on September 6, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Parse the statement as follows: “the constitution allows the bearing and keeping of arms. The consitution does not explicitly allow the purchase of guns.”
Anyway, has anyone from the media explicitly asked the “constitutional scholar” what he thinks the second amendment means, and what it’s purpose is?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 6, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Obama with a Democrat Congress is scary as hell for gun owners everywhere.
Chakra Hammer on September 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Thanks for reminding me.
Link
One small statement with a few big clues in it.
1. People in the big cities don’t have the same rights as people out in the country.
2. Only hunting and crime count. There’s no such thing as self defense.
3. The old AK47s (and Uzis) on the streets trick. Make everyone think you are talking about full-auto weapons like they see in the movies. They don’t understand that an Assault Weapon is not an Assault Rifle. The support for gun control is built upon this “bait and switch.”
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Obama with a Democrat Congress is scary as hell for gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen everywhere.
Chakra Hammer on September 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Nope, my statement was accurate. Democrats are overwhelmingly anti-gun. Here is the list of Senators that voted AGAINST the rights of gun owners in one of the last big battles. Notice the LONG string of “D’s” behind the names. How many “R’s” do you see….. answer….. zero.
Don’t make me go get the information on the Democrats in the House, but if you do, I can assure you it will show the same thing. Democrats are overwhelmingly against guns. A Democrat that votes pro-gun-rights is the rare exception and NOT THE RULE.
Maxx on September 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Scratch an Obama, find a fascist.
jukin on September 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM
LETS LOOK AT THE TAPE.
Link
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Agreed, Ed, that’s how it comes across.
It sounds petulant, also, like “Geez, not this again — I won’t take your damn guns away, so vote for me. You hear me, you neanderthals in the back?”
I guess we have to wait for the video.
Nichevo on September 6, 2008 at 2:31 PM
You should say for gun owners (period). The idea behind the Second Amendment was not to insure your right to hunt, but your right to defend yourself. This needs to be emphasized because the Democrats constantly make the argument that you don’t need an AK-47 to hunt, and that’s true, but that’s not what the Second Amendment is about.
Maxx on September 6, 2008 at 2:35 PM
We went to Biloxi after Katrina to help out the local soccer club in raising money to refurbish their soccer fields. The kids down there needed some normalcy and desperately wanted to go back to playing soccer. After the tournament and in between games we went out to see the damage and drove all the way down to Waveland, MS. This was about 8 weeks or so after Katrina hit. One of my favorite sights was the spray painted words on a destroyed home that read, “You loot, WE SHOOT!”
I smell a new Youtube ad in the making with this! And I bet it has a picture of Sarahcuda with her glorious guns taking aim!
freeus on September 6, 2008 at 2:35 PM
We are splitting hairs.
I would consider Senator and Congressman a National office.
My point was to draw a distinction between State level dems and National level dems.
I agree completely that to have the support of the National Democratic Party it helps to be anit-gun.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Fixed.
phreshone on September 6, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Here is my advice to you and everyone in the same position.
Today you do not need a firearm.
If the day ever comes that you do need a firearm that is a very bad day to be a rank novice.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Sometimes paranoia runs so deep that no treatment known to medical science will be curative or even significantly palliative.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 2:42 PM
that’s true, the liberal gun legislation “using fear tactics” and demonizing certain calibers and weapons, and ridiculous regulations that a Democrat Controlled Congress would ram though and a Rubber stamp Obama would approve, it would be devastating to all gun owners.
Chakra Hammer on September 6, 2008 at 2:44 PM
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I see your point. Thanks for the link to the video, every citizen should watch it.
Maxx on September 6, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I would say it’s proof that he won’t stand firmly against gun bans and confiscation.
aikidoka on September 6, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Ed, I would love it if you had Dr. Lott on the EMS.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Obama has enough messed up opinions that I don’t feel like arguing this one-he left too much wiggle room.
Now if we were talking about his votes to ensure that babies who survive after a botched abortion are ineligible for treatment…
Doug on September 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM
No HE wont……but his knuckle dragging goons will!
grapeknutz on September 6, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Only the small subset of that population with very severe paranoid psychosis.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 2:52 PM
As the NRA says (and I am a member), the Democratic ticket this year is the most anti-gun in recent memory.
And the idiocy of that statement is breathtaking.
It’s like saying, using another hypothetical insanity , “even if I wanted to lynch black people, I wouldn’t have the votes”.
TexasJew on September 6, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Only the small subset of that population with very severe paranoid psychosis.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Read the Second Amendment, libtard.
TexasJew on September 6, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I was watching an Obama townhall on CNN earlier and in the sidebar, CNN ran some “bullet points” on where he stands and noted – that he supports a national ban on concealed weapons, except for police and military; that he supports an assault weapons ban extension; and that he supports restricting gun purchases to one per month.
CP on September 6, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I need to go to work. If you bookmark this page and come back tomorrow I would Honestly like to talk about it.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I don’t think you have the stones to take a squirt gun away from my 7 year old nephew, Barry.
DamnCat on September 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
So, to a genius like Plugs, everything is National Defense.
Well how about domestic oil production? You know, that thing that you stupid Dims hate so much?
I seem to remember the Nazis invading the Soviet Union to get at the huge Baku oil fields (now also the source of Russian envy), and ten million people being killed.
I don’t seem to recall any war being fought to give piss-poor teachers a 15% across-the-board pay raise.
TexasJew on September 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I got the opportunity to testify before a House committee back in the “Assault Weapon” ban days. The contempt of the Democrat Congressmen for us “gun nuts” was not hidden at all. The people I was there with were regular folks with real experiences as victims that had survived by defending themselves with guns.
You would have thought we were mass murderers. Without exception the Republicans and their assistants treated us well – and treated the people speaking for the gun ban just as well. And without exception, the Democrat side treated us badly. They laughed at and ridiculed us, and they were sarcastic and obnoxious. Some didn’t even listen while we testified. Chuck Schumer, after he performed his sound bite, actually turned around and chatted with his staff during the testimony. Very eye opening.
I know that Republicans can be just as elitist as the Democrats, but in my experience it’s the Democrats in Washington that are angry and bitter – especially toward gun owners.
And when I watched the news at the airport on the way home? They only showed Chuck’s sound bite…
Mini14 on September 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
The Second Amendment does not grant American citizens the right to have severe paranoid psychosis, nor does any other amendment to the United States Constitution, paranoid.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 3:02 PM
This kills me. Rather than say, “As president, I will vigorously defend the Second Amendment!”, he makes a stupid remark along the lines of, well I couldn’t do it even if I wanted to. Liberals who claim to be supporters of the Second Amendment will ALWAYS vote for gun control. Go back and find out how many times Clinton supported gun rights as president. Check to see how many times liberals, not blue-dog Democrats, but liberals, have supported gun rights in Congress. They want the votes of gun owners during the election, but they will NEVER support gun rights over gun grabbing.
jtoms3 on September 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »