Obama: I couldn’t take your guns even if I wanted to
posted at 1:30 pm on September 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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]
Sigmund- you should Google the phrase NEVER AGAIN , and JPFO.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Actually, Biden is correct on that point. A poorly educated population will gladly give up their Constitution protetected God given rights’ for a few bobbles and beads promised by the Government and others.
Look at the ‘bobbles and beads’ the NEA and ACLU promised. The NEA promised a high quality and consistant education of the children. So, the people allowed the NEA to force teachers to pay Union Dues to them even if the teachers didn’t join. The ‘bobbles and beads’ this money provided is one of the worst public education systems in the world.
The ‘bobbles and beads’ promise by the ACLU was to protect the people, in court, from the Government and Corporations violating their ‘God given Constitution protected rights’.
As a result of these organizations and many others, we now have about 50% of our population that would prefer to live under Socialism and Communism
Conservative did write about these organizations true intent in newspapers and magazines, but, only with the growth of Conservative talk radio shows, did the true intent of the NEA and ACLU become widely disseminated to the people.
Education is very important for National Security. The only difference is Joe Biden’s party wants poorly educated and we want well educated.
Helloyawl on September 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
AP, I have NOT read the above posts, but I must strongly point out that, for Zerobama to say, “I don’t have the votes in Congress” to ban guns, is NOT - I REPEAT, is NOT - the same as if he had said, “I lack the constitutional authority” to ban guns.
REMEMBER: he is a lawyer. He knows that he doesn’t regularly consult domestic terrorist Ayers…sorta like having the educational advantage of knowing the multi-faceted use of “is”…a hard one to swallow, I know.
BUT I DIGRESS. I interpret his words as clearly meaning, “As soon as I have the votes in Congress, I’ll do what I’ve always talked about. Are you hunting guys stupid or something? Don’t you listen to what I say?! Of course I’m going to ban guns!”
Lockstein13 on September 6, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Sorry to disagree, Ed. Having completely lost all credibility by lying, noodling, and straddling every issue, all BarryO can do now is shout into the wind.
Do you also think the daily categorical denials have convinced anyone that he would not gleefully impose a huge new tax burden on the country? Let’s be real here.
HelenW on September 6, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Psychosis falls under the 1st Amendment. (And I know AP agrees with me/s)
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Does this mean I’ll be free to continue to cling to my ‘guns and Religion’ when the gov’t lets me down? /sarc
FugginBastid on September 6, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Gotta go. (be back at 4am est for more.)
I want to promote some Blogs.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/
is a good “one stop” place for more info, and the Blogroll there is very good.
http://armsandthelaw.com/
is a great site (and he made a great DVD)
And NRAnews.com is the end all be all on the topic. (link on the HA blogroll.)
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 3:16 PM
0 has one Pro-Gun vote. for the Katrina Bill.
No Fed $$$ for confiscation.
mad saint jack on September 6, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Mad saint jack, some here should google the phrases DISORGANIZED THINKING and DELUSIONAL BELIEFS.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Sigmund, do you have anything positive to add or just like to call people names?
Mini14 on September 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Example X + 1 of Obama’s stupidity. His supporters laud his intelligence, but in truth he’s merely one of the dumbest smart people well ever know. I’m astounded at his inability to “see around the corners.”
Gun owners and the rest of us should be very concerned about his position on guns, given his proposal to create a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700
BuckeyeSam on September 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Some people just use the slash for short.
wise_man on September 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM
The Second Amendment insures the First.
Disturb the Universe on September 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Obama: “Hey, you idiot rednecks in the back there, did you hear me? I said I couldn’t take your guns even if I wanted to because I don’t have enough votes. What’s wrong with you? You can’t use this as an excuse not to vote for me you stupid crackers.” Nope, nothing elitist about that statement at all.
Never a mention of the fact that it is not votes that precludes him from implementing this particiular bit of totalitarianism but rather the constitution of the US… unless he is talking about votes on the Supreme Court and then he has even BIGGER problems with the gun clingers he is trying to appeal to.
Ben Franklen on September 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Obama, that great Constitutional law scholar, supported the D.C. gun ban and said that he believed it was Constitutional (that was before the ruling came down in Heller).
Of course, if Obama gets elected and is able to name one or two like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, then he’ll be right–the next time a law banning guns comes up for review, it will be found to be Constitutional.
AZCoyote on September 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
AZ_Redneck on September 6, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I can not undertand people that restrict weapon onwership
and at the same time blame weapons for violence in the american experiance.
Why is it that some person with a drug problem gets a 15
or a 20 year sentence for using drugs AND A PERSON WHO COMMITS A CRIME WITH A STOLEN OR ILLEGAL FIREARM GETS 8 TO TEN YEARS. The american values are confussed.
I SAID ILLEGAL FIREARMS FOR A REASON. I truly believe that a person who commits a crime with a firearm should get at least 50 years in prison.
TomLawler on September 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM
You can’t take our guns,but everything else you claim you can do you can?
budaside on September 6, 2008 at 3:40 PM
What’s also holding him back is that he will never be President.
Since last I checked, the Junior Senator from Illinois doesn’t have that power.
NoDonkey on September 6, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Making a professional diagnosis is not “calling people names”, however you are certainly adding yet more evidence to the correctness of my diagnosis.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I love this video cartoon series with liberal dreamer Obama playing Monopoly with the political reality:
.
Here he plays Monopoly with Vladimir Putin:
Reality Check
.
Almost as good is the cartoon video here when he plays with George Takei, of Star Trek fame: “Gay Marriages”
JC Silverberg on September 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Let’s see B.O. make that same statement straight into the face of the Motor City Madman and gun and hunting enthusiast himself, Ted Nugent.
I doubt if Nugent will believe so much as a single syllable that comes out from between B.O.’s teeth.
And he’ll let B.O. know that in terms he will not misunderstand.
pilamaye on September 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Real reality check. I only play chess as I did recently with your George Bush and I always win.
PootyPoot on September 6, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Ed is correct that Obama screwed up. I take it to mean he WOULD do it if he had the votes.
Another reason why we MUST make sure that we support Republican congressional candidates. The NINE Bill of Rights doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
originalpechanga on September 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Ted Nugent? So he is your hero?
Ted’s excrement adventures.
“Nugent dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. In an interview for the Detroit Free Press (July 15, 1990), Nugent described how he avoided the draft: He claims that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last ten days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside pants caked with excrement and stained by his urine.”
The extreme coward POS Ted Nugent apparently literally $hit in his pants, and for a week, to keep from going to RVN!
He makes Bill Clinton look like Rambo and a class act by comparison, and that ain’t easy. Not easy at all.
When Nugent showed up at the induction center like that, they should have taken him out in the back alley, stuffed him in a barrel, and burned the $hit.
semloh on September 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM
That’s quite true; YOU couldn’t.
“A man’s got to know his limitations”
/harrycalahan
Although if the local police, accompanied by ATF agents, were sent to collect them, I’d have a difficult choice to make. I consider 92% of the local police department to be friends, and I wouldn’t want to hurt a friend.
Thats what I worry about.
LegendHasIt on September 6, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Michelle linked to John Lott’s piece on Obama and his vision of gun control.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/30/not-lifelong-republican-john-lott-addresses-obamas-gun-rights-record/
Let’s not forget that Heller doesn’t remove the prospect of further gun control laws (reasonable restrictions, right?). Obama doesn’t have to violate Heller by banning handguns, for example- he could enact legislation to ban gun stores within a certain distance of schools, which could effectively remove them from the confines of any city. I believe Michelle also wrote about this some time ago.
Or how about he bans “sniper rifles” or enacts another assault weapon ban- a number of Democrats have already signed onto HR1022.
Or how about taxing ammunition, or banning certain types of bullet, or enforcing strict legislation on the sale and storage of reloading components.
There’s a whole raft of legislation that he and a Democrat controlled Congress could enact which wouldn’t violate the spirit of the Heller decision.
Does anyone really think that Democrats are going to just give up on their anti-gun agenda if they are in power in Congress and have a man with Obama’s history in the White House?
Heller was a close call- if, as some say, there are going to be as many as three seats open on the Supreme Court in the next four years, then anyone who values the Second Amendment needs to be vigilant.
Sorry AP but I think you’re being incredibly naive in dismissing Obama’s anti-gun history. He was caught off-guard by that question, I think, and he handled it badly. This is obviously more of the same. You give him too much credit in believing that he and a majority of Dems wouldn’t try to push through gun control legislation that they’ve been lusting after for so many years.
Jay Mac on September 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Do not worry at all as that is not going to happen.
If you must worry, then worry about what you know that you should be worried about. Remember the tale of the creature with the five-segmented tail.
semloh on September 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM
AP, maybe in the past I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were just trying to keep “us” from false optimism, but no longer. It’s bad enough to be demoralizing, but to shill for the opposition is a bit much even for you.
This is a slip of his heart’s desire: “Even if I want to take them away…” Had Mr. Constitutional Scholar said, “…wanted…”, then your cover would at least sound… No, it would still be chintzy at best.
Let’s get this story passed.
Tommygun on September 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Why do they always bring up Sportmen/Hunters?(although I support and like them)…because they want to ban guns not used for hunting, then they will work on the others later. I’m not in love with guns, though I do like to look at different types for their workmanship and to determine which will best suit my needs. I’ve carried guns on a near daily basis, of all types, 3 years in Viet-Nam and 37+ years working at a municipal police department. Their just tools to me. Gun control …. forget it. The idea of that is counter to what this country stands for. BO is a lying SOB. Y’all keep safe out there. Don’t ever let them take away your self protection. Just be a responsible gun owner.
keldog on September 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM
well here goes my first series of collections of other posts and my own analysis….
Election ‘08: Democrats’ reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.
I know I want Barack O’bama forming my son’s political, moral, and ethical views.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM
http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/
http://www.idealist.org/if/i/en/av/Org/35360-153
Check out the Youtube, but right around minutes 16, and 23 are gold…
so sayeth THE ONE:
Don’t we have a national security force of civillians that’s just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded as the Active duty military?
We call them the US National Guard …..
what does Barack need a politically trained, civillian “security force” for?
Why is whether or not Sarah Palin screwed Todd’s business partner more important than THIS issue?
So I want the M$M and Lib$ to keep on hitting Sarah because sooner or later 2 things are gonna happen….
1) in looking at Sarah closer they’ll look at everyone closer
2) the press in response to the backlash that we WILL generate will be forced to at least finally pay lip service to vetting Barack….
I am *certain* the vast majority of the American People will LOVE things like this.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Oh and Team Barry removed it from the Transcripts they released.
Capone/Biden ‘08-Change I’ll try to do without!
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 4:50 PM
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
He added that he wants the help of “every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate’s biggest and boldest initiatives before the election.”
Since Farah reported the statement, it’s been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.
In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it’s likely one of Obama’s handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.
“Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it,” Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are “delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub.”
Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and “in the moment of the speech, he decided, ‘they’re back in.’”
Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to “pay closer attention to Obama’s speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he’s really good on a fixed script. And we know that he’s really bad on his own.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM
at best he is wanting to nationalize several hundred functions, and give them “parity” with the military and draw them into the federal web….
at worst he is a dimestore Il Duce, who wants to politically indoctrinate people…..
Public Allies is a group of protestors for hire
is any of this sounding familiar?
for him to get financial parity even if this “national security force” is totally benign” he is asking for federalizing 1 trillion more dollars of new spending, and dear God if he uses this is any way to indoctrinate like people suspect Annenburg was engaging in….
oh well whatever….
“Sarah’s a slut” and “Bristol’s a whore”…..quick let’s whistle up a civillian national security force and a blogstorm to get it-KOSSACKS ATTACK!.
Sorry to go OT….
Best case he “inartfully” wants to grow the Americorps and try to buy it the prestige nationally the military has….
worst case it means exactly what he said and the gleam in his eye was what a wonderful recruiting tool it would make for democrats and we’ll have a 54 year one party legislative rule bobsled course…..
what’s another trillion dollars amongst friends?
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 4:57 PM
No.
semloh on September 6, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Yeah we do the US National Guard is a civillian federally funded national security force….
IMHO…far less able to be abused because there are dual layers of oversight.
Does this nation need if we take the benign view a brand new alphabet soup in perpetuity, or at worst a political force?
We have had “war auxillary” groups before although never as finded as the military…I am truly at a loss here, and if Barry really wants to sell this why scrub it from the transcripts?
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Sorry, Cap’n Ed, but 0bama plus a ‘Rat majority in Congress means gun-grabbers on my doorstep sooner or later. Standard rules apply here. one of them, I break even, two or more I win.
GeneSmith on September 6, 2008 at 5:20 PM
My apologies, AP. I’m rather tired and misread by-lines.
GeneSmith on September 6, 2008 at 5:22 PM
semloh on September 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Arguably taken collectively the National Guard meets all those criterion but readiness.
Is he arguing for having a uniformed Civillian National Security Force on constant readiness?
I’ll concede the argument at that point….
I’m just asking why nobody in the press seems to have asked a single question on this pretty big legacy national policy he enunciated…..
did he formally retract or did it just go down the memory hole of transcript clipping?
sincerely I just want to know?
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Saiga 223 … mossberg 500 security … less than $800, well protected.
Benjamin9 on September 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM
or if inclined to learn reloading, you can go with a Mosin-Nagant 91/30, some form of 7.62*39 thrower, and a shotgun.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Your speakin’ my language, s10077.
Benjamin9 on September 6, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Obama will bring back the assault weapons ban nonsense if elected. He has already said that … And yes it is agood reason to not vote for him, you cannot trust him.
There are three things that make agood President, character, character and character. On all three counts, Obama comes up way short.
tarpon on September 6, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Tradition is meant to be broken with.
That’s why he didn’t espouse such a deep respect for the legal rights of gun ownership.
flicker on September 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Don’t buy into that petunia, that is a center piece of BO’s anti gun rhetoric. You can’t make war on the gang bangers w/o making war on the rural hicks and bitter clingers too. More divide and conquer.
Benjamin9 on September 6, 2008 at 6:12 PM
No they do not, guns mean different things to criminals and lawful citizens.
Everyone has the right to self-defense, it is one of the cornerstones of Heller.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 6:23 PM
And that’s the key right there. Listen to what Obama said in his acceptance speech when he was doing that this-not-that comparison. He made it clear that he believes that hunters have a right to guns for hunting … period. That means he doesn’t believe I have a right or a need to own a hand gun and since I don’t use it to go hunting, it’s not an acceptable firearm. To me Obama is intentionally ignoring the question of hand gun ownership and that question needs to be put bluntly to him during the debates.
Texas Gal on September 6, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I posted my links to other sites, the youtube, and my thoughts on Barack’s oddly dropped Civillian National Security Force because quite frankly that sounds suspiciously totalitarian to me.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Sigmund, the Dr. Phil of blogger psychoanalysis. “I can diagnose you in two posts or less!”
Mini14 on September 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
minutes 16-23:30 were scrubbed from the transcript?
He was NOT stammering….
why does Barack O’bama want a force as funded and large as the military?
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I have psychoanalyzed both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, believe me this is just a cigarillo.
Sigmund on September 6, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Either he is absorbing the meaning of the 2ndA as he sees it into a federally controlled notion(Brownshirts), or it is just a pander to the bitter/clingers trying to appeal to their perceived lack of intelligence and rube-ness.
Benjamin9 on September 6, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I can do the same thing, and my professional diagnosis is that you’re full if sh!t.
fossten on September 6, 2008 at 7:35 PM
When I originally saw this speech it raised the hairs on the back of my neck. I do not understand why we need a National SECURITY Force. We all ready have a national security force that is the National Guard (State based) and Coast Guard (Homeland Security). What we need is continued strengthening of the Border Security forces and I’ve not heard him say that, not even in this entire clip.
I too find the proposal troubling and even if it never should come to pass, the idea that Obama wants to create one under his presidency is very alarming to me.
I have no doubt that Obama does plan to move towards the banning of handguns … period.
Texas Gal on September 6, 2008 at 7:44 PM
But, what about mine and the other 100,000 concealed carry participants in Ohio?
Benjamin9 on September 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Hope I’m wrong.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM
he wants a manpower pool as large as the military….
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Obama is free to come and TRY to take mine.
Zoltan on September 6, 2008 at 8:25 PM
If drafted, I will not serve.
This whole silly thought of his, is quite unconstitutional. BUT it does shed light into his dark and freedom usurping political philosophy.
Benjamin9 on September 6, 2008 at 8:51 PM
No, you certainly couldn’t take my guns, douchebag, but let’s not go down that road…
Jaibones on September 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM
knob, Get yourself something with range. You’ve got the short range stopper now you need to be able to reach out and touch someone if needed.
I’ve got one for each distance. 30/30, AR15, Beretta semi shotgun and my glock. If the “zombie” horde gets through all that then I’ve got my Dad’s K-Bar he carried in Vietnam.
VikingGoneWild on September 6, 2008 at 9:17 PM
I figure Obama thinks he’s got 8 years to put his plan in place. It’s bothersome to me that I have repeatedly heard this argument for the 2nd Amendment has been focused on the rights of hunters to own guns. I’m just suspicious that the argument has left open a door to ban handguns. Now on one hand I do appreciate that I’m going to be allowed a shotgun to protect my home from invaders, but when I travel I take my handgun with me, and carrying a shotgun or rifle in my vehicle is not something I do when I travel. Nor do I think that type of firearm is very conducive to my protection when I’m in my vehicle.. or in a hotel room on my travels.
I’m not exactly sure how this latest SCOTUS decision would play out if Obama was able to swing the court to his position with future appointments. But it seems to me that some more learned interpretors of that decision felt they left some wiggle room. That bothers me.
Texas Gal on September 6, 2008 at 9:29 PM
The time to buy guns and ammo is now. A 7.62×39 rifle, 4 spare magazines, and 1,000 rounds will fit comfortably in a 4′-5′ length of 6″ diameter PVC pipe with sealable end caps to keep the water out. Make sure that your hiding place is somewhere with metal underground (foils sensors for magnetic detection, and ground penetrating radar), and get GPS coordinates.
Oh, and semioh, the confiscation already happened once in LA after Katrina. And the cops have avoided returning as many of the guns as possible, even under court order. And those they have returned were improperly stored so they are coming back rusty, warped, and generally unusable.
Sigmund, if you are making “professional diagnosis” here, you can provide us all with the states you are licensed in. Then those of us who live in those states can file complaints, and those of us who don’t can file charges on you for practicing medicine in our states without a license.
Otherwise, you’re just another lying leftard.
SDN on September 6, 2008 at 9:43 PM
QFT
Ray “Willy Wonka” Nagon was quite proud to destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of guns through negligence.
sven10077 on September 6, 2008 at 10:45 PM
POSTER / T-shirt / etc:
-Obama On The 2nd Amendment-
___________________________
Even if I wanted to take your guns away from you
[photo of unhappy Barack]
I don’t have the votes.”
(yet)
profitsbeard on September 6, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Allah:
You misread it. Obama didn’t say “even if I wanted to take them away,” as the subject line misleadingly suggests. That would have been the normal use of the rhetorical device you describe (note the subjunctive in your McCain hypothetical), and would have sent a clear signal that he was discussing a counterfactual scenario, and does not in fact want to take them away. Instead he used the indicative where we would normally expect the subjunctive, as if to say that he either does want to take them away, or at best, he hasn’t made up his mind whether he does or not. Cf. O.J.’s infamous “If I Did It,” vs. what any truly innocent person would have said instead, “If I Had Done It.”
Last and least, it’s an odd use of the word “paranoia” to describe the view that Obama may still hold the same views on guns he has espoused for years, and has yet to renounce.
Xrlq on September 7, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Has anybody heard Glenn Beck’s “Obama’s National Anthem?”
Hilarious!
Glenn Jericho on September 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM
I found the video on his Friday gun-talk It’s a pro-Bambi vid by something called “The Collective Action Roundtable” of AfriSynergy Productions, but his PA talk is at the beginning, following a few seconds of butterflies and African music.
I think he has a quicker plan than using the SCOTUS for gun control, since that failed. He’ll use Executive Orders — like trigger locks and no-carry, DC style — for your safety, and to prevent those poor gang-banger kids from killing themselves, of course:
Partial transcription, including blatant lies about the NRA:
Nichevo on September 7, 2008 at 6:38 AM
Oops, forgot YouTube link:
Barack Obama Wants to Take Away Your Guns
Nichevo on September 7, 2008 at 6:40 AM
He wont take guns away from you? balderdash!!! his party only reason of being IS to do that! The left/communists do that to insure their power in this country. If you don’t believe it, look at Chicago’s gun ban.
grapeknutz on September 7, 2008 at 7:36 AM
Say Uncle posts a letter from Obama-
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court endorsed that same view. Although it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.
And-
I support the re-imposition of the ban on the sale of assault weapons that expired in September 2004 because I believe these guns are used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent. I also support requiring gun manufacturers to install child safety locks on all of their products.
Still think he won’t come after guns, AP?
Jay Mac on September 7, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Hey NObama your desperation is showing… YOU DAMN RIGHT YOUR NOT TAKING MY GUNS!!! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!!!
build the wall on September 7, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Thanks for that Nichevo. Obama is a very clever wordsmith but he is very clear in his intent if you listen to what he says:
In other words, you can keep your hunting guns and use them to protect your family. And I’ve got to wonder what is an illegal handgun to Obama. If he didn’t believe handguns to be illegal, that sentence would have been handguns being illegally dumped. It’s the dumping that is illegal, not the handgun.
And again he reaffirms his position, rifle, shotgun, that is the gun in your house. Those are the firearms Obama will allow us to keep.
Texas Gal on September 7, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Gun owners and the rest of us should be very concerned about his position on guns, given his proposal to create a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700
BuckeyeSam on September 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Is this for real, BuckeyeSam? If so, this makes BHO even more scary than I originally thought…and I thought he was pretty damned scary! Sounds like he would be forming a private army around himself, but why? The president is already commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Would this be an attempt to get around posse comitatis (sp) and send an armed force against Americans who don’t bow to his supreme will? I may simply be paranoid, but I do know that even paranoids have enemies.
SKYFOX on September 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
You can sum up BO like this.
He was on the BoD of the Joyce Foundation.
The Joyce Fnd. pays the bills for almost every Gun Control group in the country.
Now I’m going to the range. (new shooters today woo-hoo!)
mad saint jack on September 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]