Posted on 10/27/2008 12:39:09 PM PDT by neverdem
Brilliantly, Democrats have kept the issue of guns out of the presidential campaign. Guns have barely been mentioned, with the exception of Barack Obama's gaffe about rubes clinging to Bibles and guns, his cautious support of the Supreme Court's Heller decision, and pop culture references to GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin killing moose.
Democrats have long been on the losing end of the gun-rights debate, which has cost them countless elections.
Quietly, on Oct. 13, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - one of the most radical gun control organization in the United States - endorsed Obama. It's an endorsement Obama hasn't flaunted on his campaign stumps, but it's one that should concern Second Amendment defenders.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said the organization endorsed Obama because he knows the benefits of "strengthening our Brady background check system, getting military-style assault weapons off our streets, and giving law enforcement more tools to stop the trafficking of illegal guns."
In other words, the Brady Campaign has researched the candidates and come to the conclusion that Obama might fight for gun control. They use fancy phrasing, such as ridding the streets of "military-style assault weapons." What they really want, however, is to cause trouble for law-abiding citizens who wish to keep handy the guns they find necessary for hunting and security.
If Obama and Joe Biden will help get assault weapons off our streets, then Obama and Biden support ordinary gun control. We had a so-called assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, and it was ordinary gun control. The Department of Justice found it did little or nothing to reduce violent crime in this country.
Genuine assault rifles are machine guns, which rapid-fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. That's what gun banners want the general public to visualize when they talk about banning assault rifles. They want us to imagine some monstrous gang leader spraying bullets in all directions at the police and innocent bystanders.
But genuine assault rifles, as in machine guns, were essentially banned by the 1934 National Firearms Act. Possessing one lawfully means buying a license and spending thousands on a firearm. Few people own them, and they are not the subject of the so-called assault weapons ban we already tried, and are considering again.
The modern gun banner has taken to classifying common semi-automatic rifles, such as the civilian models of the AR-15 or the AK-47, as "assault rifles." They are ordinary rifles that shoot one bullet for each pull of the trigger. They are commonly owned by hunters, collectors and people who care about home safety.
Ironically, the ban of these so-called assault weapons in 1994 left far more powerful weapons in play - weapons capable of far greater destruction, such as the common .30-06 hunting rifle. All it did was ban rifles of a certain class simply because they look more dangerous and therefore could be confused with something needlessly menacing to society.
Those who would take our Second Amendment gun rights know that most Americans don't support their agenda. So they seek to get the camel's nose under the tent with small victories won through deception - such as so-called assault weapons bans. They must deceive to achieve.
After the Heller decision, which struck down the District of Columbia's gun ban, Obama issued a benign statement: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures." It went on to explain that he favors measures to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Who could argue with that?
His harmless statement couldn't possibly have been enough to please the Brady Campaign. So what does this organization like about Obama?
In his book "The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed," author Alan Korwin documents that Obama swiftly reversed his position on gun rights the moment the high court ruled that gun rights belong to individuals.
"Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama supported the position of the Court's dissenters - that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects collective rights' of states," Korwin wrote. The court equated the "collective rights" theory to Alice in Wonderland. The book details how Obama's voting record on gun rights is 100 percent consistent; he favored every gun restriction that came along in the Illinois Senate.
Second Amendment defenders should ask Obama to come clean on his true agenda pertaining to gun rights (he's in Colorado on Sunday). Gun rights advocates should keep in mind that Heller was a 5-4 decision, and Obama would likely appoint one, if not two or three, Supreme Court justices.
Americans are well within their rights to elect a president who would work to ban guns, and erode gun rights. But they shouldn't do so by accident. They should vote only with full knowledge of Obama's position on guns, and to date that remains unclear.
The second amendment is the heart of our Constitution, because without it the rest are just words on a paper.
Thanks, neverdem.
ILAs ability to fight successfully for the rights of Americas law-abiding gun owners directly reflects the support of NRAs more than 4 million membersa number that has more than tripled since 1978. Copyright 2008
Maybe that “About Us” page is out of date?
Use the word ‘Communist’ more often.
With all the “economy” issues, this is discussed as much as Abortion, which means it isn't discussed at all.
I've said it before, it's like we're living in some Bizarro World. We are seven days away from the Inmates running the Asylum.
Hope and Change may be replaced by Lock and Load sooner than you think.
Au contraire!
Galvanizing the gun vote - NRA hopes to seal election by painting Obama as no friend of the firearm
And the small 'l' libertarians in battleground states will know it.
We are one week out. I live in true blue California, so I “hope” those of you in the Battleground States are seeing the NRA ads as well as the McCain / Palin ads showing the Obamanation for what he is, an threat to our Republic.
I thought I would never see the day, but here we are.
Sigh...
They came through in 2000 & 2004, didn't they? If they could make guaranteed predictions, wouldn't they be like the wizards of Wall Street? Take heart! Say your prayers! There are very few atheists in fox holes. It's only faith, but I'd rather pray.
Well, I sent the NRA some money, so I must have some “hope”.
Just tell me the NRA ads are making a difference in the Swing States. Since I’m in true blue California, all I know is what I read right here.
Keep praying, I do.
That's great. Consider some more at the NRA-PVF.
The commies are suppressing them as much as they can.
I'm in NY. They are aggressive. They are wanting to get in your face. They must be faced down. If they want to fight, then that's their choice. I don't need guns to fight. Guns are convenient. My hands will do.
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.