Sen. Barack Obama's campaign just won't let the gun issue rest. Mr. Obama and his campaign surrogates continue to assure gun owners that he is on their side, and it appears to be paying off. John McCain only leads Mr. Obama among hunters by 14 percentage points, just about half the 27-point lead that President Bush held over John Kerry in 2004. If Mr. McCain had a similar lead, he would be ahead in... [Washington Times, Opinion, via gunpolicy.org ]

More...

Methinks this issue may well become Senator Obama's Achilles heel as the election draws closer. IMHO one need only examine what Senator Obama's past statements and writings say to find his real stance on the matter, eh?

It doesn't take much investigation, fly...He has a well-documented track record.

real people with guns don't kill executioners in authority do

as long as the gun is liscenced, everyone is trained and certified, and a cop doesn't have a gun, the world is fine.

Cops and blackwater mercanaries with guns execute

real people don't

in NYC if you are black
COPS KILL 41 shots 50 shots
it seems like every single day in NY another crazed out of control kop kills someone or beats someone

after all
Martin luther King Jr
Bobby Kennedy
John Lennon
JFK
Allard Lowenstein
Harvey Milk
Lee Oswald
Huey Long

all died from guns

Stop the governmental agent people from killing, then give guns to everyone else.

Guns, gays, and God.

Three diversions that will NEVER be resolved but which the right-wing wants to make central to the campaign so you won't think about the real issues:

Your outsourced job.

Your foreclosed house

Your lack of health care

Your uneducated kids and grandkids.

But go right ahead.

We have freedom of speech here in America.

We just may not have much else if we don't get a real leader into power.

Pay attention, Jeff...This is a 2nd. Amendment forum. The issues you've listed are discussed in other areas.
As for a "real leader"...Please let me know when you find one.

Frenchy, I'm sure you know that the Washington Times is a very right wing paper. Do we know that Obama is going to enact any gun control legislation as president? I think he agrees that Heller is now the law, right?

According to wiki:


The goal for Republicans in this election is to try to present McCain as a maverick, in order to attract independents, while appealing to religious conservatives. They have now accomplished the latter with the choice of Palin. McCain also is going to use Palin to shore up his "maverick" credentials, as she has a reformer reputation. We'll see if the Democrats can be effective in shattering his "maverick" image and instead portray him as Bush's "sidekick" instead.

Mt family are gun owners and hunters. We are Democrats and have never felt threatened that our guns were going to be taken away, even when, horror of horrors, a Democrat occupied the White House. This issue is used in every election because some people want to be able to own any type of firearm they want with no restrictions. The NRA is the hammer for this issue. They do not welcome debate on this issue, even among their own members. I can already hear the comments when our hunting season starts. "I can't vote for him.....he'll take away my guns!" This from the guy that has lost his job, his home, and his children are probably on the free or reduced lunch program. They might not be able to afford anything else but by God, they can afford the gas, the guns, the ammo, not to mention the high costs of belonging to a hunting club. I guess everyone has their priorities!

I'm not a big follower of gun ownership issues or concerns about 2nd amendment rights. What rights do you want....what restrictions would you accept, if any?

Could it be his support of the constitution and willingness to see both sides of the gun issues...........hmmmmmmmmm

I agree with you AND I agree with the NRA too. I think they view restrictions on any gun as a whittling away of their rights. I personally wouldn't want all of these high-powered weapons. But when you think about the fact that the government and organizations like Blackwater have extremely high-powered weapons and could (God forbid) declare during a state of emergency that everyone turn in their weapons, it sort of makes sense to have what the government has. It's a protection against tyranny. This may seem far-fetched to some, but do you think it really would be under someone like George Bush and Dick Cheney?

remember-
during Katrina

WHAT PRESIDENT WANTED TO TAKE AWAY THE PEOPLE'S GUNS???
GEORGE W. BUSH
THAT IS WHO.

The SCOTUS has just ruled that gun ownership does not spring from reference to militias. That is a huge victory for gun owners, resolving a problem that has existed for 75 years.

So when are we going to stop using a dead issue to divert us from the work we have to do?

As for a "real leader", such a person is one behind whom the nation will line up.

For me that would be Obama.

We have been giving up rights since the 1934 gun control act. With over 20,000 laws on the books now, which new restrictions should we inact?

Check his record on gun rights.

I can do that...But, I'm wondering what it is that you object to...what rights do you want that Obama is opposing?

First I don't agree with the concern about a stance on gun rights by POTUS, the legislative is where the real concern should be and SCOTUS is a pretty effective backstop (in fact it's even better when SCOTUS makes a decision because it's more durable).

Second, Obama seems to like getting input from Tony Lake, knowing what the stance is of mutual old friends who'd have his ear there's no risk of not having that position represented in the decisionmaking process.

Ooh, ooh, can I answer? How 'bout the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as outlined in the Second Ammendment of the United States Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Heller decision, eh? Methinks it's as simple as that, and if Senator Obama means it when he says he strongly supports the Bill of Rights IMHO it's gotta include all of them!

Whilst lookin' for an answer for another thread I ran across a little somethin' pertinent here, eh? "Court To Hear Gun Case", an article in The Chicago Tribune November 20, 2007 says: "But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constititional."

So 'twould seem he was for the D.C. handgun law before he was against it, eh? 'Tis a puzzlement!

Hi Fly! Long time no see.

I guess Obama figured out that pushing gun control was a loser issue. He did still mention it in his speech the other night though. He seems to think that people living in the country might have different views of guns than people living in inner city Cleveland, Ohio. So, it would appear that he favors localities deciding on gun issues.

He has stated in the past that he would mandate a federal ban on concealed carry, over-riding the law is 48 states. He has also stated that he would ban semi-automatic pistols. He would sign an assault weapons ban even though the last one solved nothing.
His record is out there, and it is crystal clear.

why does somebody need a semi-automatic pistol?
Are there 10 deer coming round the corner at the same time?

can I have two bazooka's to go please...

If he decided to follow through how many senators would go along with ending concealed carry? 6?12? Banning semi-auto pistols? 2? 3?

Are you afraid of a miniature black hole going through your house too?

I don't have a problem with him banning concealed carry and the weapons you mentioned. Obviously we will always disagree on this.

I own a semi-automatic pistol. I use it for target shooting. Some people use them to protect their homes and their persons.

Not really a puzzlement, Fly. Obama's reactions make sense, to me at least. Read this article about the U.S. SC decision (federal) and how it may not affect control of those handguns by local and state governments. This will continue to be fought out in the courts.

From the article:

"The court notes that is not required to consider whether the 2nd Amendment also applies to state and local government, and therefore it does not consider that question," Solomon said. "The court had previously held on three occasions the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government, and it does not reconsider or even address that issue in this opinion.

The 2nd Amendment is a federal constraint, the city argued, and local and state governments should not be prevented from regulating guns in ways that are tailored to their communities. Washington D.C. is a federal entity, so the decision may not even apply to Chicago, its lawyers have said."


Read more:
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3078

So you believe in the right of the Federal government over-riding state law...How constitutional of you.

Tom...Look at the record of the Democrats in the Senate on gun control legislation, and repeat what you said with a straight face.

Well, it depends upon who is able to carry concealed weapons and who the heck needs assault weapons?

New York sheep don't...You have your city government to protect you.

Within certain constraints it's a perfectly valid concept. Although I strongly disagree with that application (which would never pass congress) claims that the construct of when federal supremacy applies not often being subjective are just flat wrong.

And those constraints would be...?

The Constitution defines when the federal government has jurisdiction and when states do.

Yes...It's called the 2nd. Amendment. Infringe upon it and DC happens.

Both sides of the argument blatantly misrepresent both the scope of federal jurisdiction and the impacts of various proposals/regulations. I don't have time to get into the protracted argument, but you know it's true.

DC was beyond the pale, SCOTUS straightened it out and gave better guidelines, so why follow the NRA line of always back the Republican if the stances are equal?

Yes, but like all parts of the Constitution, it's open to interpretation. I guess that's why we need state supreme courts and the U.S. supreme court...to interpret the meaning of the states' and U.S. constitutions. If it were so cut and dry there would be little need for supreme courts.