NRA Mailing - Obama most anti-gun candidate ever, will ban guns

[Sam Spade]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/NRA_Obama_most_antigun_candidate_ever_will_ban_guns.html?showall

A recent mailing from the president of the National Rifle Association to its members says that Barack Obama wants to ban the possession of handguns, and that "never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate — and hundreds of candidates running for other offices — with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms."

The fundraising letter from NRA President Wayne LaPierre focused largely on Obama's record and statements — since, in part, disavowed — from the 1990s of strong support for gun control measure, like waiting periods and background checks to buy a gun.

LaPierre also attacked Obama for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a front John McCain and the GOP have avoided.

"There's Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church, to which Obama contributed $26,000 over the years, even as Wright spouted anti-American hatred," LaPierre writes in a list of Obama's "friends."

The mailing also included a wallet card  (below) listing what the NRA claims are Obama's positions on guns, though they are not in fact his campaign positions, and in many cases it seems flatly to contradict them. The NRA claims Obama wants to bar the use of firearms for home defense and ban the manufacture and sale of handguns. How the group reaches those conclusions is unclear. In one case, though, it interprets an Illinois proposal he backed to close gun shops near schools and parks as a plan to "close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America."

According to the campaign (.pdf), Obama "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." He's also said he believes there is an individual right to bear arms.

The mailing appears in full, with criticism, on an online bulletin board, but NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam confirmed its validity.

[War on Want]

NRA=Satan

[MarkWarner08]

This is akin to a NARAL ad featuring a picture of John McCain watching a back alley abortion. Both are intellectually dishonest ads that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[ChrisFromNJ]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/NRA_Obama_most_antigun_candidate_ever_will_ban_guns.html?showall

A recent mailing from the president of the National Rifle Association to its members says that Barack Obama wants to ban the possession of handguns, and that "never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate — and hundreds of candidates running for other offices — with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms."

The fundraising letter from NRA President Wayne LaPierre focused largely on Obama's record and statements — since, in part, disavowed — from the 1990s of strong support for gun control measure, like waiting periods and background checks to buy a gun.

LaPierre also attacked Obama for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a front John McCain and the GOP have avoided.

"There's Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church, to which Obama contributed $26,000 over the years, even as Wright spouted anti-American hatred," LaPierre writes in a list of Obama's "friends."

The mailing also included a wallet card  (below) listing what the NRA claims are Obama's positions on guns, though they are not in fact his campaign positions, and in many cases it seems flatly to contradict them. The NRA claims Obama wants to bar the use of firearms for home defense and ban the manufacture and sale of handguns. How the group reaches those conclusions is unclear. In one case, though, it interprets an Illinois proposal he backed to close gun shops near schools and parks as a plan to "close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America."

According to the campaign (.pdf), Obama "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." He's also said he believes there is an individual right to bear arms.

The mailing appears in full, with criticism, on an online bulletin board, but NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam confirmed its validity.

And?

Do you have anything to add?

[Sam Spade]

And?

Do you have anything to add?

In this case, I am merely reporting the information, not passing judgment on its contents.

[minionofmidas]

Meh. One can only hope the wing of the NRA currently in control there registers in Rio Arriba County soon, as a Democrat.

[Sam Spade]

Meh. One can only hope the wing of the NRA currently in control there registers in Rio Arriba County soon, as a Democrat.

Cute. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

      at Obama banning guns. Then again, maybe they're from an alternate universe where Carter banned guns in 1977-1980. Besides, even if Obama did ban guns, there's a little thing called suing the government for infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sam,

What we have here is a question of whether to believe Obama's actions and statements in the past (well documented opposition to the right to keep and bear arms) or his more recent slightly less hostile statements (just this year he stated that while he supported the right to keep and bear arms he also supported the Washington, D.C. ban).

So, yes, until the least few months, Obama was probably the likely nominee of a major party most hostile to the right to keep and bear arms.

The salient questions is whether Obama's rhetorical change this year reflects a real change, or mere lip service to allow him to get elected, after which he will revert to his former position?

Now, given the position of the American people, the Congress (most of whom recognize that an attack on the right to keep and bear arms would mean an end to their careers), and the clear meaning of the constitution, I doubt that Obama could significantly attack the right to keep and bear arms.

However, it is clear to me that he is hostile to the right (recent disclaimers to the contrary).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they weren't such partisan hacks, they'd note that Obama actually praised District of Columbia v. Heller.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If they weren't such partisan hacks, they'd note that Obama actually praised District of Columbia v. Heller.

To be accurate, Obama agreed that there was some right to keep and bear arms, but contended that the D.C. ban, contested in the Heller case, was constitutionally ok, and he considered it to be a good idea.

[7,052,770]

If only I were an undecided voter and got this mailing, I would instantly become 100% Obama and send him money!

[J. J.]

If they weren't such partisan hacks, they'd note that Obama actually praised District of Columbia v. Heller.

The question here is what Obama supported after Heller, but before it.

It's a bit like saying after Brown vs. Board of Education that segregation is a violation of constitutional rights, because SCOTUS said it was.  I would be more supportive of someone who said it was unconstitutional before Brown.

[Nym90]

"what the NRA claims are Obama's positions on guns, though they are not in fact his campaign positions, and in many cases it seems flatly to contradict them"

Another big business special interest group opposes Obama and feels the ends justify the means when it comes to playing loose with the facts. I'm shocked, shocked I say!

[CARLHAYDEN]

"what the NRA claims are Obama's positions on guns, though they are not in fact his campaign positions, and in many cases it seems flatly to contradict them"

Another big business special interest group opposes Obama and feels the ends justify the means when it comes to playing loose with the facts. I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Nym,

Obama is NOW claiming that he takes a different position from that he has consistently taken for years.

Now, could it be possible that his current "campaign positions" just might be so many lies to get him elected?

[Nym90]

"what the NRA claims are Obama's positions on guns, though they are not in fact his campaign positions, and in many cases it seems flatly to contradict them"

Another big business special interest group opposes Obama and feels the ends justify the means when it comes to playing loose with the facts. I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Nym,

Obama is NOW claiming that he takes a different position from that he has consistently taken for years.

Now, could it be possible that his current "campaign positions" just might be so many lies to get him elected?

Yes, it's possible. Politicians do tend to do that, I won't deny it.

But I think the notion that the Democrats, even if they wanted to (which is extremely highly debatable in and of itself) could actually ban guns is laughable at best. If they ever tried, you'd definitely see me wearing a blue avatar the next day.

[CARLHAYDEN]

"what the NRA claims are Obama's positions on guns, though they are not in fact his campaign positions, and in many cases it seems flatly to contradict them"

Another big business special interest group opposes Obama and feels the ends justify the means when it comes to playing loose with the facts. I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Nym,

Obama is NOW claiming that he takes a different position from that he has consistently taken for years.

Now, could it be possible that his current "campaign positions" just might be so many lies to get him elected?

Yes, it's possible. Politicians do tend to do that, I won't deny it.

But I think the notion that the Democrats, even if they wanted to (which is extremely highly debatable in and of itself) could actually ban guns is laughable at best. If they ever tried, you'd definitely see me wearing a blue avatar the next day.

Nym,

First, either you did not read, or misunderstand/misrepresent the NRA missive.  It was not guns in general that it was alledged that Obama would like to ban, but rather handguns.  And, yes, it would not suprise me given his record that he would like to essentially ban private possession of handguns (remember, he supported the D.C. ban before the Supreme Court decision).

Second, as I earlier noted, I do not think that Obama could institute such a ban (Congress would stop him), but, would not be suprised to see him do things like pull the plug on the background check system (you have to go through the system if purchasing through a FFL dealer), making it essentially impossible for such dealers to sell firearms (note that Carter essentially tried to ban handguns via the Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Third, please distinguish between "Obama" and "democrats."  If you check, there are lots of Democrats in Congress who support, and are supported by, the NRA.  Obama on the other hand is a certified hoplaphobe.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

well maybe this is because Obama knows that there are problems with his security and that he could very well be assassainated by some radical racist group.

Idiotic

[Saxwsylvania]

well maybe this is because Obama knows that there are problems with his security and that he could very well be assassainated by some radical racist group.

This is a brilliant insight, but alas, only another example of the infinite monkey theorem.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Even if Obama wanted to ban all handguns, which I don't think he does, he would be unable to, because any such legislation would be dead on arrival in congress. The president actually has relatively little control over this issue, and I find it puzzling that so many people vote based on it.