Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance
Barack Obama will have a big problem attracting the blue-collar white voters he needs to win the presidency, writes Bob Owens: they like guns and he wants to take their guns away.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
As she clawed for survival against Barack Obama in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary this past weekend, Hillary Clinton lamely asserted her Second Amendment bona fides over that of her rival by claiming that she once shot a duck in Arkansas.
As pathetic a pander as that tale was, it did serve to point out one gaping weakness in the armor of the Illinois senator, a man who must rely on blue-collar white voters if he hopes to prevail first in the Democratic primaries, and later in the general election.
The weakness? Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms.
In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”
By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.
In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.
That same year, Obama bravely voted “present” on a law that would require teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. Obama also proposed the idea of banning businesses that sell firearms from operating within five miles of a park or school — restrictions that would treat gun shops worse than “adult” businesses trafficking in pornography.
From 1998-2001, Obama sat on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, a left-wing group which today funds grants to anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center (which advocates total handgun prohibition, reinstatement of the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban, and the ban of other firearms), the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (which favors the registration of all handguns, seeks to overturn Ohio’s “concealed carry” law, ban standard capacity magazines, and ban economical handguns along with many semi-automatic firearms based upon their appearance), and Handgun Free America (which advocates a complete ban on civilian handgun ownership).
All of these organizations seek to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is the idea of “change” that they share with Barack Obama.
On the federal stage, Obama’s brief U.S. Senate career has already seen him vote against a bill (S.397) to protect the firearms industry from those who seek to sue manufacturers, distributors, and importers for the criminal misuse of firearms by criminals, an idea akin to suing car manufacturers for damages caused by drunk drivers.
Tellingly, Obama’s presidential campaign has sought to hide his history of trying to disarm law-abiding Americans.
Buried deep in the “Issues” section of Obama’s web site under “Additional Issues” is a PDF document that can only be described as an attempt to talk around Obama’s real position on firearm ownership. In a section where the campaign claims to “respect” the Second Amendment, the document states:
Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He 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.
Tellingly, Obama’s campaign only addresses the gun rights of hunters and specific shotgun-only shooting sports, and only then in vague terms.
At no point does Obama recognize an individual right to own handguns, or explicitly recognize a right for Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves or others. The site explicitly states that Barack Obama recognizes civilian gun ownership for two just purposes, “hunting and target shooting.”
Hillary Clinton, almost as liberal as Obama on the issue of gun control, could not take advantage of Obama’s radical, out-of-the-mainstream position on firearm ownership because she, too, holds many of the same liberal ideas.
As America moves toward the general election, however, John McCain will have no such problems in discussing Obama’s distrust of his fellow Americans on this issue.
McCain is hardly the poster boy for the National Rifle Association, but McCain claims to strongly support gun rights, stating, “Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal,” a position diametrically opposed to the record of Obama, who favors outright prohibition of many common civilian firearms.
In August 2007, writing at the liberal blog Daily Kos, “BlueDotRedField” shared his lament on Obama’s gun control history coming back to haunt him in the diary entry “Obama gunning to lose in 2008“:
The clear implication of this statement is that Obama believes that Chicago’s violent crimes are to be solved at a national level — since Chicago & IL already have VERY tough gun control laws that have not stopped their crime problems, and to be solved by gun control legislation specifically mentioning the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” and blaming Bush for that ban’s lack of renewal.
This statement is very important for those of us lifetime Democrats who not only are more libertarian leaning (especially after 8 years under the imperial presidency of George Bush), are more rural, and who own firearms or have family/friends who do. This statement is also the battle cry that figures on the right have been waiting for from Obama just in case he could actually beat out Hillary.
[…]
Common political wisdom has been that gun control legislation, and specifically the AWB, was [the] key handing the Congress to the right in 1994. Additionally, it played a strong part in the election and re-election of George Bush. Only recently, as we have run more centrist and rural understanding Democrats, were we able to retake Congress and have any chance at countering Bush & Co. in any way.
And we stand at a precipice where we can hand it all right back to them.
There seems little chance that Barack Obama can hide his real record and views of gun ownership from the American public though November’s presidential elections.
Once his prohibitive views of firearms ownership become known to America’s millions of gun owners, they may well decide that a gun-grabbing Barack Obama promises the kind of “change” that they can’t believe in.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
45 Comments
Steve J.:In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” - effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.
LOL! Obama supported a good idea.
Feb 22, 2008 - 1:32 am Patterson:When will these idiots learn that criminals do not follow the laws? What is banning handguns going to accomplish? It will disarm those that do follow the laws and leave them defenseless against those who don’t. Do they actually think that criminals are going to see these new bans (if they happen) and say, “Oh well since handguns are banned I’m going to have to use this (insert any other type of weapon here) instead?”
Feb 22, 2008 - 3:08 am Dogwood:Patterson,
Yes, they really do believe words on paper will stop those inclined to break the law.
I have never been able to understand how seemingly intelligent people could believe such nonsense. My only conclusion is they are not intelligent and thus are not qualified to hold public office.
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:21 am David Thomson:The Barack “Barry” Obama hysteria is severely damaging the Democratic Party. The real question is not whether a black man can win the presidency in 2008—but if this particular individual is worthy of the honor! Unfortunately, a lot of white liberals allowed their guilt to overwhelm their common sense. At this moment, one wonders if John McCain will win by a landslide in November. The odds are increasingly in his favor to do just that.
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:35 am Fred Beloit:I find it difficult to believe that American voters will be fooled by a glamorous male celebrity into accepting Marxism as out political future.
Feb 22, 2008 - 6:35 am Atlas Shrugs:Really, David? What makes you think a half-crazy wanker like McCain deserves the presidency? Temper, temper, Mr. McCain…
Feb 22, 2008 - 6:56 am DDS (NRA Endowment Member):The men and women who took up arms against their own government, beginning on April 19, 1775, and fought for eight long years to defeat what was then the dominant military power on earth, the Royal armed forces of King George III, did not then write a constitution to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” so that we could hunt ducks. They insisted that the Bill of Rights forbid the new government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms so that if necessary we could do what they did, seize the reins of power from a government run amok and replace it with one which protects our fundamental human rights. The Second Amendment ain’t about hunting!
Feb 22, 2008 - 7:18 am Doodle:Dogwood - here’s another example of that same idiotic thinking: restraining orders. These knuckleheads really believe that someone intent on committing murder one will be deterred by a restraining order. Can they really be that stupid, or is there another agenda?
Feb 22, 2008 - 7:28 am Marc:Obama is one scary dude. I’m more afraid of him than Clinton. We do not know how he’ll vote or what policies he’ll pursue. I live in Elmhurst, IL. A state senator lives a few doors down. I’ve had conversations with him regarding Obama’s work ethic. Apparently, he routinely showed up late to committees, left early, and was consistently unprepared. This guy wants to be the leader of the free world? Oh, and by the way, his church DOES NOT accept white members. Hello? This guy is a radical, and hungry for power. God help McCain.
Feb 22, 2008 - 7:54 am Nat Whilk:“Obama said he favored a ban on ‘the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.’ By definition, this would include all pistols ever made . . .”
Every pistol ever made was a semi-automatic? The first semi-automatic pistol was allegedly made in 1892. Are you saying there were no pistols before then? Are you using some idiosyncratic definition of “pistol”?
Feb 22, 2008 - 7:54 am FeroVeritas:Nat Whilk,
The modern definition of handguns is:
Pistol - semiautomatic magazine fed
Revolver - fed from a revolving cylinder.
Right out of Combat Training With Pistols and Revolvers FM 23-35, the Army’s handgun manual. Not an idiosyncratic definition, a correct definition.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:22 am Ken:Petterson, Dogwood:
I believe the anti-handgun logic isn’t in that criminals will stop using handgun just because of a law that says so, but rather that if law obeying people will stop using handguns, demand for them will drop, and fewer handgun will be produced/imported in/into the US, making it more difficult for a criminal to find a handgun to use for a crime.
That logic might actually work, if there weren’t something like 250million guns already in the united states, or at least if handguns had a very limited lifespan and had to be replaced every 2-5 years. Unfortunately there are enough handguns out there to keep the criminal world supplied for the next century or so, without anymore being produced.
If one was a subscriber to “less guns means less crime” philosophy (Which I’m not, for what should be obvious reasons), then a better approach would be to outlaw the manufacture/sale/import of ammunition, since it actually “expires”. Again, I don’t think that would be good idea, but at least it would be more consistent.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:23 am Doodle:Ken, you’re forgetting the porous border. Arms, particularly handguns, can’t be controlled across the border, particularly by this government that won’t control bodies.
Until they can stop the illegals and the drugs, it’s a pipe dream to think that they can control guns.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:52 am Doodle:The last professor we had for president was Wilson. God help us if this one ever gets the levers of power.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:55 am Andrew:The 2nd amendment is totally outdated and should be changed. There are thousands of people who should be walking around right now whose life was cut short by a gun. All too often you hear stories of people accidentally shooting themselves or others. I understand people who feel the need to have a gun depending on circumstances but 95% of gun owners don’t need them. Whats really troubling is the people who love guns.
Feb 22, 2008 - 9:00 am Ken:Nat Whilik,
Single action revolvers would be the only pistol that would be allowed under the proposed ban. Those are the old school wild west revolvers that require the hammer to be cocked in between shots. They were usually fired using both hands, and could still achieve a relatively high rate of fire, if the trigger was held down and the hammer was pulled back repeatedly (Think any western out there). I don’t know if those guns are still manufactured in any reasonable scale.
Feb 22, 2008 - 9:13 am ElKafir:The sad thing is we gun owners have plenty of rats among us who are more than willing to help Hussain Obama to trample the Second Amendment of the US Constitution under his feet.
They always come with the usual apologies only a retarded baboon would believe:
-I am a multi-issue voter. Guns are important but there are more important issues like abortion and the environment. I didn’t made up my mind yet. (yeak, like abortion and the environment are protected by the Constitution, but the Second Amendment isn’t!)
-The Democrats learned their lesson with the Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban and won’t dare to do it again (ROFL)
-I am a centrist and I don’t vote for the same party or candidate every time (but on every firearms enthusiasts Internet forum they relentlessly attack the conservatives while keeping mum or even defending leftwing politicians - no matter in what scandals they get involved)
If Obama gets elected and the mandatory gun registration followed by confiscation will begin, you law abiding gun owners will know who to thank for transforming America in a nation of disarmed subjects at the mercy of the criminals and government abuse - British style. Too bad any amount of remorse and blame after the fact won’t give your guns back.
Feb 22, 2008 - 9:16 am Ken:Doodle,
Agreed, ammo would no be much harder to smuggle in than drugs. A ban would probably raise the price/reduce availability somewhat, so it could be said that it would be more effective than banning handguns, but still, it would accomplish little toward that goal.
And I still think the goal is a bad idea, but I don’t know how one could prove that. It would be hard to do a study correlating gun possession rates to crime density, excluding for every other variable, and even those result could be interpreted both ways, as there is no way of telling if gun ownership causes crime or if crime causes gun ownership.
Feb 22, 2008 - 9:19 am gs:Thanks for this important post.
Afaic your most damning point is
This corroborates it; a link directly to Obama, e.g. to sponsored legislation, would be even better.
Feb 22, 2008 - 9:29 am Dogwood:Ken,
Unfortunately for their theory, handguns can be made in a garage with nothing more than a few easily available machines, such as a mill, lathe and drill press. I think my local Lowes has most the tools one would need for such a project.
It is simply ludicrous to believe we can un-invent something that has been around for hundreds of years.
I find the left’s naivete on this issue simply disturbing.
Just let me defend myself and if I misuse a firearm, then punish me accordingly.
Feb 22, 2008 - 9:52 am Nat Whilk:FeroVeritas:
Thanks. You learn something new everyday. Someone should alert the OED, American Heritage Dictionary, etc. Also every person who thinks he owns a pistol manufactured prior to 1892. And Thompson Arms, who manufactured my father’s Contender Pistol. And the IOC, which has people using single-shot handguns in its 50m pistol competition. And . . .
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:03 am Dogwood:Andrew,
The fun thing about living in a free and democratic society is that we each get to determine for ourselves what we do or do not need.
Neither you nor I can tell another person that they do or do not need a firearm. We don’t know their circumstances.
Finally, instead of sitting around your abode arbitrarily determining what people do or do not need, I strongly encourage you to embrace the concepts of freedom and personal responsibility. Go ahead, give them a try. I think you will find them enjoyable features of life.
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:15 am Doodle:Maybe not having them freely available would drive the price up by some small margin, but then the question becomes who is motivated to pay more for a gun? The guy protecting his home, or the armed robber?
Gotta spend money to make money. If you make them more expensive, the advantage accrues to the professional criminal.
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:28 am capitano:After the NIU shootings, Obama had this to say about gun control and the 2nd Amendment RKBA:
Chicago and D.C. effectively prohibit handguns. No need for federal regulation, just let the states and municipalities grab the guns on a local level.
Let’s see how this would work on an issue closer to Obama’s supporters:
Obama said he believes in a woman’s Constitutional right to an abortion, but that there is plenty of room for added regulations. “Therefore if a city wants to prohibit abortions except in extremely rare cases by requiring an overwhelming medical need and a court order, I would support such commonsense regulation.”
No way he’d support application of the same rules to his “imaginary” Constitutional rights, but he’d effectively eliminate specific rights like the 2nd Amendment.
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:40 am fred:Andrew, many of those thousands that were shot were criminals and gang members shot by rivals, none of them able to legally own a gun.
For those of you that did not take history, the revolution against the previous government was about excessive taxes-taxation without representation. We now have taxation with “representation”. Our government is taking away more of your rights, and giving more rights (and medical benefits!) to criminals and illegals. With the current economy, government spending will not go down, but the IRS will be asking “what’s in your wallet?”. We are paying more taxes now than what King George was collecting back then.
This year, the elections will have only democrats running-shrillary, osama, and mcpain.
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:45 am Sigivald:Fero: It might be a correct definition, but it’s needlessly confusing, as in normal use even among gun enthusiasts (let alone laymen), “pistol” is a synonym for “handgun” and has been since the first use of the term.
Gun manufacturers and that FM are the only places I’ve ever seen the distinction observed.
(The internet suggests that this is particular to the United States, and British English makes no distinction - which surprises me, since I’m an American, surrounded by Americans, and deal with lots of gun enthusiasts here on the internet… and this distinction doesn’t seem all that common to me. )
Feb 22, 2008 - 11:06 am njcommuter:Sigivald,
The ignorant are unaware of that distinction. Those who take the time to listen to the debate and discussion have learned. Sadly, most of the people on one side of this debate haven’t stopped to actually understand it. Those who understand it end up on the other side.
Does understanding lead to the position, or the position to understanding? Yes. Most people who know about firearms like to be able to have them around. (I’m an exception; I’ve never felt the need.) People who look at history, look at the actual results of policies that have been tried, look at the likely reactions of people to the passing of laws are likely to come down on the same side. (And while I fear the day that I feel I need a firearm, I damned sure want to be able to have it without the State creating a secondary hazard, beyond the already questionable restrictions on the right of self-defense.)
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:35 pm Chip:Gun control will work exactly as well as the War on Drugs. Funny how the gun control side usually sees the arguments when it comes to drugs.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:00 pm RG, Arizona:“There is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation,” he said. “
Clever man isn’t he? He has a messianic appeal that chills me to the bone. Those Americans getting their news and views from Big Media will never hear of his true intentions. It is up to us to get the word out.
But we have been fighting to keep and maintain our rights for 230+ years. The fight continues. Senator McCain is no particular friend of ours either.
Feb 23, 2008 - 8:11 am Wendy Weinbaum:As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that America wasn’t won wiuth a registered gun? And that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
Feb 23, 2008 - 3:05 pm Mark:I hope Obama’s insane agenda destroys the democrat party. Americans are not going to stand for him trampling on their rights.
Feb 26, 2008 - 8:37 am Michael:White people do not have the right to oppose Obama. Anyone who opposes Barak is a racist of the worst order.
Feb 26, 2008 - 8:34 pm memerider:I fear Obama is too much like Jimmy Carter. He knows how to spread the love, but his speeches are empty rhetoric and he seems to just parrot Clinton on the issues. And since he is extremely anti-Second Amendment in his actions, actually advocating for infringing on our rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I am not likely to vote for him.
I would love to elect a thoughtful, experienced black president who cares about our rights. And I know of quite a few who fit the bill, but they aren’t running.
Feb 27, 2008 - 8:38 am Tim:Barack will be the biggest joke for a President we’ve ever had if he get’s in!
Apr 13, 2008 - 4:52 pm Howard:The scary thing is, he makes Hillary look like Charlton Heston!
Why Obama thinks decent citizens should have their rights revoked is beyond me! They banned pistols in the U.K, now crime rates have skyrocketed. The same thing will happen here if he get’s his way! With the extreme liberals in the Senate, it could happen!
I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS
Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
Apr 19, 2008 - 9:15 am Amanda:achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm
Michael, first of all it is spelled BARACK. secondly because i oppose barak it makes me a racist? maybe i don’t believe in the things he stands for. sure, i think he has some good points, but he’s not the guy i’d pick for my president. I don’t really want someone who’s wants to revoke some of my rights. for example, the second amendment, the right to bear arms.
A Huge debate today, as a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has actually for the first time in the History of this debate, decided to hear both sides and interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. So why is it that people would want to outlaw guns? I just don’t get it. You say guns kill people. WRONG!! The person who pulls the trigger is the one who makes the decision to shoot, nothing else. If we’re going to blame guns for murders, then I think we should start blaming our cars for speeding and our pencils for incorrect answers on tests.
Jun 5, 2008 - 3:09 am Lee:Taking away our right to bear arms is like taking away our right to fight back. Criminals want unarmed victims and Dictators want disarmed citizens. Do you really think that if we outlaw guns, the crime will disappear with them? I think not. If a criminal has the desire for a gun, even if they’re outlawed, he’ll still find a way to make it happen. People smuggle so much stuff now days. So a criminal breaks into my house threatening me and my family. He’s threatening me and the people that I love. Then what? What are we supposed to do to defend ourselves? So you take away guns and take your way to fight back
As United States Citizens, our ownership of guns is what helped keep Russia from invading us in the past. Sure, they were a strong and powerful empire with the military capabilities necessary for conquering our military. But if they would’ve tried to come into the U.S. and fight the citizens to take over the country, they couldn’t have done it. The fact that we all owned guns showed that there was no way for them to take us over. We wouldn’t allow it. We, as a people defending a nation would’ve fought back and won.
So today, we have this debate. This “2-sided” argument. But I can only see this: I see the productive benefits that come from having the right to bear arms will far out-weigh any complaint against this right. So please America, be reasonable, be smart, and think about this. Besides, Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun ever will.
As a 16-year old, gun-owning, straight, high-school educated, politically informed, Christian Female, I am a Proud Supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Don’t the media people ever get tired of shoving their candidate, Barak Obama, down the throats of Americans? From the beginning, we have had to endure their constant media bias and the lop sided promotion of THEIR candidate. They are supposed to report the news fairly, with an even hand, providing equal coverage and exposure for both candidates. The media may be able to influence the news, but they’re loosing their credibility in the process.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:15 am Lee:Obama’s proposal of CHANGE requires sound judgement to determine which things should change, and which things should be kept, cherished and embraced. Unfortunately Obama and his left wing supporters want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. They have no appreciation of U.S. history, or the blood, sweat, and sacrifice it’s taken to make America the greatest country in the world. They seem to believe that before you can create change, first you must discredit, or destroy everything that’s come before. Obama relies on young voters apathy and ignorance of American history and tradition, which makes it easier for them to buy into CHANGE, without any sense of what kind of change is needed. Evidence of this, is Obama supporters embracing his disrespectful alteration of the Presidential seal, to further his personal ambition. Or, Obama’s black liberation church discrediting Thomas Jefferson, because of an alleged affair with a black slave. If Obama is elected President, America’s history will be gradually revised, and I predict that America will become barely recognizable.
Jun 21, 2008 - 4:39 pm