Obama and Guns: Two Different Views"


New member
Received the following from USCCA today.

Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.

In other words he has his mind made up and no one will confuse him with the facts.

Guns: Two Different Views"

by John Lott Jr
found at www.foxnews.comPREFACE: This is a John Lott Jr. article that I found at FoxNews last week, and I knew I wanted to show you. Normally, I have an excellent article written by a professional trainer, but this was too important to pass up- plus, I really like John Lott Jr. Once again, it's about Obama. I don't want you to think Obama has a monopoly on my distaste for the democratic candidates this year... Anyway, here's the article:


Something happens to Democrats on the gun issue when they run for president. For John Kerry during 2004, it was awkwardly posing in brand new hunting gear at a seemingly endless series of hunting photo-ops.
But in what will probably be the most improbable change, the Politico reported on Saturday that Barack Obama was making a big play for gun votes in Pennsylvania. It is not particularly surprising that this change is occurring with the crucial Pennsylvania primary soon approaching.

With about one million of the country's 12.5 million hunters, Pennsylvania is number one in the nation in the amount of time its citizens spend hunting. With about 600,000 people with permits to carry concealed handguns, Pennsylvania also has more permit holders than any other state.

Others, such as Jim Kessler, vice president for policy with Third Way, a progressive think tank, view Obama as starting to position himself for the general election.

Yet, it should be a hard sell.

Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.

For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a "ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" and he responded "yes."

Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign "flatly denied" Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

But then IVI provided Politico the questionnaire with Obama's own handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI's board of directors, some of whom have worked on Obama's past campaigns, told Politico that "I always believed those to be his views, what he really believes in, and he's tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate."

But the IVI questionnaire isn't the only one out there.

In 1998, another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didn't ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all handguns and the vast majority of rifles sold in the United States.

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said "Oh, you are the gun guy."

I responded "Yes, I guess so." He simply responded that "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago's lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

If taken literally, Obama's statement to me was closer to what the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating that Obama's bans would extend well beyond handguns.

Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Even Hillary Clinton disagrees with him on this.

The Obama campaign's strategy largely follows 2003 surveys produced by Democratic pollster Mark Penn showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on."

It was the same strategy that all the Democratic presidential candidates seemed to follow in 2004.

Earlier this year, Karlyn Bowman at the American Enterprise Institute said: "The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on the issue well. . . . the right to be able to own a gun seems to be firmly held, and I think that's why both candidates say what they say."

In practice, saying that Obama now believes that the Second Amendment means that there is an individual right to own guns doesn't mean anything if it can't even prevent guns from being banned. And even today, despite the pressure from the Pennsylvania primary, Obama is unwilling to state that DC's or Chicago's ban on guns are unconstitutional.

Obama's website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: "hunting and target shooting." The notion that people might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn't something that he sees as legitimate.

On both his Iraq and trade policies, Obama has already faced the embarrassing situations where his top advisors have had to tell people in other countries not to worry because he doesn't believe what he is telling American voters.

With guns, it sure looks like Obama is again telling voters what they want to hear, not what he plans on doing.

Last edited by a moderator:


New member
"Reasonable" Restrictions

I think it's telling that he'll say that he believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but then he says that he also believes that municipalities should have the right to reasonably restrict that right. When asked, he refuses to elaborate on what constitutes a "reasonable" restriction. He's definitely trying to have it both ways; espousing a belief in an individual right to avoid alienating pro-rights voters, but not ruling out strict bans to avoid alienating liberals...
If you put a truth serum in him, he probably wants to grab all of our guns, just like Hillary. So McCain seems to be the least of three evils, since I can't even write in for Paul here in Oklahoma...:angry:

The Gunny

New member
this does not surprise me in any way. I really do not think many gun owners fully realize these are his beleifs. I think we have the absolute worst crop of candidates I can remember on the issue of gun control/rights etc. I just don't see this getting enough play in the press.

Let's face it the media love him. He is getting pressure from the right but it can appear clumbsy and crude. I think the mere publishing more information like this will get their attention but only if they are published widely.


New member
The thing that disturbs me most is it seems that people believe whatever he says. He could say "I never said I was trying to ban guns. I think everyone should have one". Then the majority of Americans will say "see he is pro gun he just said so."


New member
Obama and Heller

What matters about Obama in the long run is what he says after Heller comes down. Keep in mind that he is a creature of Cook County, Boston, and Hawaii - not exactly the norm on guns.

So far, all I have seen is a hack that takes the commonly held view of where he lives. If you are running for office from the Kingdom of Daley, there is no political need to either evaluate our position OR get fanatic about the issue like Chucky (he used it to get the attention that ended up getting him first into the House, then becoming the Junior Senator from New York), Teddy (wave the Bloody Shirt over his brothers), DiFi (Harvey Milk), and McCarthy (lost husband and son to Coo-coo Ferguson on the LIRR).

It has not been on his radar in the past, but the Heller decision will be the time for his focus. His bobbing and weaving stops when the Supremes have their say. Then we go after him.

Assuming we get what we want - Individual Right, Strict Scrutiny, Applies to the States - he has essentially two answers:
  1. Try to spin what every scrap in the decision supporting local control, limitation, or restriction as being reasonable.
  2. Declare that it is what we have been saying it is, and indicate that he is not interested in the issue - since the Court (like in Plessy vs. Ferguson when overturned by Brown vs. Board) has settled the issue.
At that point, he will have had to read the briefs and the decision. Then we will know, because the "I support the Second Amendment" bromine will not work.

Slickette - on the other hand - will go with 1 above.

If he takes 1, then I am prepared to go to the Tractor Factory in Stalingrad to fight him tooth and nail.
Last edited:


New member

The thing that disturbs me most is it seems that people believe whatever he says. He could say "I never said I was trying to ban guns. I think everyone should have one". Then the majority of Americans will say "see he is pro gun he just said so."

Note the following defination

Doublespeak (sometimes double talk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Doublespeak may take the form of bald euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs) or deliberate ambiguity. Doublespeak is a disparaging label for any euphemistic term perceived to be uttered in bad faith


New member
the more I hear about this guy the more I can't stand him... if he is able to lie his way into the white house we are in for a world of hurt.

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest member