Posted on 07/31/2008 4:41:40 AM PDT by marktwain
For the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, U.N. gun-ban extremist Rebecca Peters and her globalist billionaire sugar-daddy George Soros, for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his horde of big-city politicians—in fact, for all those individuals and organizations who would harm or destroy our Second Amendment rights—Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” means their agenda will be harnessed to the total power of an aggressive, activist and radical federal government.
“Change” means gun owners will be under siege like never before.
Especially for NRA members who fought through the never-ending threats of the Clinton-Gore administration, the understanding of “change” must be the driving force for us to get other gun owners to the polls. This election is critically important. We cannot afford to have any friend of the Second Amendment sit it out, regardless of the reason.
We all know gun owners who are disillusioned with politics. Those influenced by talk of four years of “progressives” in power coalescing a united conservative movement must be reminded that this November, we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government.
With Obama’s emphasis on grassroots organizing, his administration will be a government redesigned and realigned to stay in power. It will be a government converted into a political machine. And with a so-called “progressive” majority in both houses of Congress, there will be little to stop that power shift.
When Obama talks about “change,” the gun-banners at the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign know exactly what change they want—inside power. And they’ll likely get it.
Michelle Obama, in a politically charged college campaign speech in California, defined her husband’s meaning of “change”:
“Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual ...”.
As NRA members, this statement doesn’t bode well for our future. Our “lives as usual” means the daily exercise of our freedom.
And what of “cynicism”? It is the very basis of Americans’ long history of questioning government power and its abuse. It is the basis of challenging dissembling politicians. Cynicism is the key to seeing through politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who falsely wrap themselves in the Second Amendment while espousing dangerous programs for civil disarmament.
And “division”? As NRA members, our “division” from the likes of Obama means we stand together and fight every day against those who would destroy the bedrock principles that have made our country the freest in the world. Divisiveness is the basis of our democratic institutions. Division based on principle is a noble thing.
“Comfort zone”? What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence? That is the real “comfort zone” of all Americans. We are the only nation on earth built on the principle of “pursuit of happiness.” That means we do not serve government; it serves us.
The “change” Obama and his close allies—like George Soros’ Moveon.org —seek is a complete regime change driven by a radical political agenda. For the nation’s gun owners, “change” will take the form of many steps back to the bad old days of the Clinton-Gore years or the Jimmy Carter years, when bureaucrats in a dozen agencies were relentless in their schemes to press a hostile presidential agenda against gun ownership.
For gun owners, “change” could well mean an erosion of hard-fought reforms and hard-fought protections we have secured over the years. Those reforms represent battles won by gun owners led by NRA since the founding of the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975.
“Change” means removing the restrictions we secured against the Consumer Product Safety Commission from exercising a bureaucratic ban on firearms or ammunition based on phony “consumer hazard” criteria. This is something the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have vainly sought for years.
... we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government
“Change” means ignoring the strictures imposed on federal gun-control enforcement by Congress, like preventing “firearms trace data” from being delivered into the hands of big-city lawyers to fuel punitive lawsuits to strangle the lawful firearms industry. This is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s dream, and it is the “change” demanded by his gun-ban axis of urban politicians.
“Change” means an effort to erase all of the reforms of federal gun laws created when Congress enacted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. That law ended a reign of terror by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that, for gun owners and civil libertarians, was the shameful hallmark of the Jimmy Carter presidency.
“Change” means that federal lawyers from multiple agencies with unlimited taxpayer funding will find “creative” ways to bring elements of the law-abiding firearm industry to court, circumventing the restrictions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. As a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama voted against that law, which was designed to end punitive lawsuits claiming firearm industry liability based on totally unrelated acts of armed, violent criminals.
For those who don’t remember, in the waning days of the Bill Clinton presidency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with the U.S. Department of Justice, used the threat of scores of separate lawsuits in many federal venues by city housing authorities to extort a supposedly “voluntary” gun-control agreement from firearm manufacturers. If Obama becomes president, you can bet the farm that bureaucrats will once again use these threats to obtain strictures that Congress would never enact.
In fact, among key advisors chosen by Obama to vet possible running mates is Eric Holder, who was Attorney General Janet Reno’s top deputy. Holder, as the Justice Department point man on all gun-control schemes, was among the top officials announcing the Clinton-Gore extortion agreement in 2000.
I don't know if the NRA-ILA has specifically compiled a list of backup quotes for each point, but the general point that Mr. Obama is in favor of gun control is valid. Mr. Obama clearly says his strong support for gun control on his campaign website at http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php:
GUNS
REALITY: OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED COMMON SENSE GUN CONTROL, AS WELL AS THE RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS
Obama Supported A Package Of Legislation That Would Limit Handgun Sales To One A Month. ''The package closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family,' Obama said. 'We're limiting handgun sales to one a month. 'We're calling for handgun registration. It's very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don't know how many weapons he has purchased.'" [Chicago Defender, 2/20/01]
Obama Voted To Prohibit Multiple Sales Of Handguns Within A 30-Day Period. In 2003, Obama voted to create the offense of unlawful acquisition of handguns, prohibiting the multiple sales of handguns within a 30-day period. In 2000, Obama was co-sponsor of bill prohibiting the transfer of more than one handgun within a 30-day period. The bill exempted federally licensed firearm dealers who purchase handguns in the regular course of business, military, law enforcement officials and certain hunters. [93rd GA, HB 2579, 5/16/03, 3R L; 23-36-0; 91st GA; SB 1614; 2000]
Obama Disagreed With The NRA That "People Should Be Unimpeded And Unregulated On Gun Ownership;" In Favor Of Handgun Registration And Licensing Requirements. Obama said, "I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree. I do not object to the lawful use and ownership of firearms, but I do think it is entirely it appropriate for the state to monitor it. Too many of these guns end up in the hands of criminals even though they were originally purchased by people who did not have a felony. I'll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training." [Chicago Defender, 7/5/01]
Obama: America Has A "Tradition Of Gun Ownership In This Country That Can Be Respected." The Weekly Standard reported, "When a student asks Obama for his views on the Second Amendment, he reminds his audience that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and is thus familiar with the arguments regarding the right to bear arms. He acknowledges 'a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected,' and says that his academic studies convinced him gun ownership 'is an individual right and not just the right of a militia.' But he was not finished. 'Like all rights, though, they are constrained by the needs and the rights of the community.' Obama then spoke of 34 students who were killed on the streets of Chicago and called for sensible gun control to prevent senseless death. He speaks of the importance of parental involvement in education before listing the many ways in which he would expand the role of the federal government in the schools." [Weekly Standard, 12/17/07]
The website OnTheIssues.Org has a collection of Mr. Obama's quotes on gun control at http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm, and he has expressed extreme positions, including a wish in 1998 to ban all semi-auto firearms:
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008 Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008 Q: You said recently, "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 do you reconcile those two positions?
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008 Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008 Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007 Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."
It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007 Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007 I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006 KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
- Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
- Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
- Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
- Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
- Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
- Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
- Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
- Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
It’s exactly what the Second Amendment is. If you can purchase and maintain it, you may have it if you wish.
Not a single one of those people in the video mentioned the National Guard. Who the hell do you think volunteers to be in the National Guard in most states? All of the video footage showed Sherriffs, City Police, and DEA (What the hell was the DEA doing in NO?), except for the footage of a Humvee driving down the street.
Do Police officers take an oath to “Support and Defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?”
The amendment failed a voice vote, but was declared to have passed anyway. Demands from some on the floor that it be put to a recorded vote were ignored.
Unfortunately, we didn't have the Internet back then. Most people didn't even know about that provision until after the bill was signed.
“As each day passes, and more is learned about Obama, it is becoming clear that him winning the presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. God help us.”
Co-signed.
The newsbabe narrator said National Guard 51-52 seconds in.
If Obama is elected President, there will quickly have to be a revolution or military coup. He will quickly try to consolidate power. The Democratic Party controlled Congress will elected leaders who will be puppets of the Liberal Messiah. By 2012, this would be a Communist country.
If Obama gets elected, there will also be an even more powerful Democrat-controlled Congress, and courts, including SCOTUS, stuffed with far leftist activist judges.
With Obama and the Democrats in control of all three branches of the government, the 1st and 2nd amendments are indeed in serious danger.
Everyone needs to think about this in November.
BINGO!!
They are supposed to.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article IV, Constitution for the United States.
They will likely be in greater danger than they are now, but they are in danger now.
Think McCain-Fiengold and any number of federal gun laws you'd care to name.
What next?
Thanks for the info.
Unfortunately for this thread, nobody has given evidence of “Obama’s 10 Point Plan”. Much has been attributed or imputed to him, but no evidence is given.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.