Is OBAMA a threat to Concealed Carry?

Obama is just carrying on with what they think in Illinois, and I agree, if he is elected, and tries to do anything with conceal carry, the House and Senate won't allow it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I don't think Obama is just a left liberal because he is trying to satisfy his Illinois followers. I am sure he does change a little with the political wind just to get votes, but IMO at his core Obama is a liberal, and will try to limit gun rights when he has the opportunity. This would include appointing liberal judges to the Supreme Court should that opportunity arise.
 
From the OP.

Just think, all of this would be gone. No reason to own those neat little pocket guns any more. No reason to have this forum. Finished.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I have noticed in the past month that there are Obama supporters that participate on the gun forums. No problem, but I would assume that gun ownership is not close to the top of their priority list. Same with the Hillary supporters.

Don't want to overload things, but this another good site for Obama's gun stance.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcing and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."
Click to expand...

I don't know what else to say. Pretty clear to me that Obama is against CCW.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I think Obama would take almost any opportunity to whittle down second amendment gun rights. Little by little.

By the way, I just watched NBC's Ann Curry interview Obama on TV. Curry did everything but get down on her knees during the interview. Totally disgusting, and definately NOT good journalism. She's a joke, in fact.
 
But the president can push policy ideas into Congress... How do you think Bush got the Patriot Act brought to his desk on a platter?

Having Obama in office would probably 'inspire' the anti crowd to push new bills daily banning something or another in firearm legislation...
 
The President can only sign into law what is sent to him by congress.
Click to expand...

True. But he can also propose legislation and he can appoint Supreme Court candidates. So, I hope no one is implying that having a strong anti-gun President is meaningless and will never do harm to gun ownership.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/preslegpower.htm

The President's Legislative Agenda
Once a year, the president is required to provide the full Congress with a State of the Union address. At this time, the president often lays out his legislative agenda for the next year, outlining his legislative priorities for both Congress and the nation at large.

In order to help get his legislative agenda passed by Congress, the president will often ask a specific lawmaker to sponsor bills and lobby other members for passage. Members of the president's staff, such as the vice president, his chief of staff and other liaisons with Capitol Hill also will lobby representatives to try to garner support for the legislation.
Click to expand...
 
I hope no one is implying that having a strong anti-gun President is meaningless and will never do harm to gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Many simply bury their head in the sand, and hope that a "true" conservative will come to the rescue somewhere down the road, to undo any harm done by either Obama or Hillary. Not a very realistic approach as far as I'm concerned.
 
Having a strong anti as POTUS would not be good but it would equally not be the end of the world.

There are 38 states at my last check which were Shall Issue. Many others are May Issue. Do you think that 26 senators from Shall Issue states are going to oppose the clear will of their electorate on this. Then there is the house which is even more closely tied to the electorate.

When the time comes to appoints SCOTUS justices it is time to play like the Dems. No free rides for Ginsberg 2.0. Remember the hell of judicial nominees with a minority of Dems, well turn about is fair play.

Again, Obama can only do so much as president, just as the Founding Fathers intended. It is up to us to pound on our legislators with regards to the legislation which is passed and nominees approved.
 
It is up to us to pound on our legislators......
Click to expand...

With Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray as Senators from the state of WA, expecting anything except anti-2A legislation is pretty much hopeless.
 
Maybe I am paranoid, but it seems to me that some are giving the subtle message that there is no need to worry about Obama VS gun rights if he becomes President. The arguments seem to be that he was just doing what his fellow liberals wanted in Illinois, or that he can only do what congress passes.

I think the common sense answer is: Why would anyone believe that a left wing liberal elected as President that has liberal senators falling all over themselves to show him support, would have any problems in getting congress to pass anti-gun legislation?

If elected, Obama would have liberal Senators lining up (begging) to introduce his anti-gun legislation.
 
Again, Obama can only do so much as president, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
Click to expand...

Very true. There is little the President can do that Congress does not allow him to do.

Maybe I am paranoid, but it seems to me that some are giving the subtle message that there is no need to worry about Obama VS gun rights if he becomes President. The arguments seem to be that he was just doing what his fellow liberals wanted in Illinois, or that he can only do what congress passes.

I think the common sense answer is: Why would anyone believe that a left wing liberal elected as President that has liberal senators falling all over themselves to show him support, would have any problems in getting congress to pass anti-gun legislation?

If elected, Obama would have liberal Senators lining up (begging) to introduce his anti-gun legislation.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think anybody here is naive enough to think that having somebody like Obama in office isn't at least somewhat dangerous to gun rights. But liberal Senators falling all over themselves to show him support? Doesn't do him much good unless he has about sixty or so of them. The Democrats may (currently) hold a slim majority in the Senate. But that majority was only won with the help of states like Virginia and Montana...and that majority can go away just as quickly as it came.
 
I'll do whatever I feel necessary to protect myself, regardless of law. Criminals don't care about law, why should I? I've been a law abiding citizen all my life, and for some A-Hole to try and tell me that I'm not going to protect me and my family, well, hopefully he's the one who gets shot dead during a robbery to prove a point.
 
Maybe I am paranoid, but it seems to me that some are giving the subtle message that there is no need to worry about Obama VS gun rights if he becomes President. The arguments seem to be that he was just doing what his fellow liberals wanted in Illinois, or that he can only do what congress passes.
Click to expand...

First it is very unusual in modern times for a party to hold the presidency for a third term. Odds are we are going to loose and the only thing changing that at all are the two Dem front runners shredding each other. Either Dem is equally bad on the 2A. They are no different. That does not mean do not worry. It does mean do not panic and look to what can be done.

What we need to do is focus on the core and rebuild so any anti legislation can be countered. Many Dems in office now are NOT true antis and they got their seats by being "conservative dems". We need to make certain they remember that and pound on our legislators. I know how futile that may seem to some, since I am from NY I think you can understand my perspective, but it is simply THE most effective method available.

Obama can no more wave his hand and make guns go away than Bush could wave his hand and get all his judges appointed when the Reps had both houses. The good news is most of working and voting America is to the right of the Dems, even if they do not realize it now. Two years of Obama or Clinton will do wonders for the legislature representation and 4 years will help greatly come 2012.
 
But that majority was only won with the help of states like Virginia and Montana...and that majority can go away just as quickly as it came.
Click to expand...

You forgot an option, it can get stronger this time around....didn't think of that one did you?
 
Obama's answer to any problem you can name is 'more government regulation'. Obama is a threat to freedom, on more issues than just guns..
 
But that majority was only won with the help of states like Virginia and Montana...and that majority can go away just as quickly as it came.
Click to expand...
You forgot an option, it can get stronger this time around....didn't think of that one did you?
Click to expand...

Really? That can happen? Wow.

This time around that's not only possible, but likely. The Republicans have, IIRC, twice as many seats up for grabs in the Senate this cycle. I've not gotten too deep into the races yet (still a long ways off), but skimming through them a little while ago it seemed like the Democrats only had a couple shaky ones, while the Republicans had several. Any way you slice it, odds are good for at least a two seat pickup in the Senate for the Democrats.

So yeah, I had considered that one sparky. Thanks, though.


The question, however, is how many of that majority (which would still only be 54 to 55 or so) would be willing to vote for something crazy like banning concealed carry nationwide. Like Musketeer pointed out, there are 38 shall-issue states. That means that at least 26 Senators from shall-issue states will have to vote in favor of banning concealed carry nationwide...presumably going against the wishes of their state's voters. Right now Montana has two Democratic Senators. All it would likely take for that to change just as soon as possible is if either (or both) of them voted against concealed carry.

Of course, "as soon as possible" in that case would be 2012. But the point is that it would take a lot of votes from Senators from more rural states, more conservative states, and from the majority of states that have locally adopted shall-issue permits in order to make concealed carry go away. Assuming the Democrats actually manage to take control of both branches (which is likely what we're assuming if we're assuming an Obama win) they're already all going to have targets on their backs. When you're running everything, that means every screw up is on your party. Do you think the Democratic Senators from gun-friendly states are likely to give their opposition more ammunition? Some, sure. Enough? I don't think so.


Is Obama a threat to firearms rights in general? Of course he is. The question is how much damage he (along with Congress) can do. Banning concealed carry nationwide? It'll take a lot more than "hope" to make that happen.


EDIT: Seriously, look at the OP. That's some serious fearmongering/overreaction right there. If Obama's position was "Free Ponies for Everybody" I'd not exactly be stocking up on Pony Chow. I look at his "ban concealed carry" position about the same way. He's just a little bundle of hope, but there are some things he's just not going to actually make happen.
 
So yeah, I had considered that one sparky.
Click to expand...

I was born in 1940, so I don't think the sparky moniker fits. I go by madmag, or if you prefer sir madmag.

It's not fear mongering to point out a candidates stand on gun rights. And that we will probably have fewer rights after he gets in office than we do now. For me, fewer is the key word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top