i found this on the NRA's website. comments?



Outrage Of The Week -- Political Hypocrisy By Obama
 
Friday, March 07, 2008
 
A March 2 commentary in National Review Online (NRO) demonstrates the hypocrisy that often abounds in the campaigns of anti-Second Amendment candidates.  This time, the transgressor is Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

In his NRO column, Jim Geraghty recalls how a few years ago, Obama (then a state senator) proposed enactment of a federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from operating within five miles of a school or park.  Of course, considering the geography of most cities and towns, banning a lawful business operation within a five-mile radius of a school or park would very often amount to an outright ban on those businesses.

While that endeavor certainly demonstrates his disdain for FFLs and their legitimate business, another vote demonstrates Obama's apparent tolerance for what others would no doubt consider controversial businesses.  On a Senate bill to prohibit sex-related shops to operate within a five-mile radius of schools or houses of worship (which failed), Obama took a pass, and voted "present."

The Obama spin:  He was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities!

Advocating a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products, while showing support for, or, at minimum, indifference to, holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard is not only hypocritical, it's outrageous

Hmmm Yeap

Two comments:

1)  Has anyone fact-checked this column?  The ONLY references I can find to this bill are in reposts of this same column.  Obama's website says nothing of the kind, nor do independent websites listing candidate positions on various topics.  Not that anyone in the right-wing would ever distort facts intentionally...

2)  As far as allowing pornography, no comparison.  How many people are murdered by nasty DVDs in drive-bys each year?  How many children shoot themselves accidentally with dirty pictures?  Obama has stated that he is concerned with inner city availability of handguns, especially from unlicensed dealers, but that's all I can find even close to this.

I will agree, there is no comparison in the two subjects.  I still advocate that information is our best weapon.  The more people are forced/encouraged to learn about weapons safety and proper handling before a purchase the less horrific incidents such as accidental shootings will occur.  The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and I do not believe it should be infringed upon, I do believe that stipulations proper for the current state of affairs should be amended unto this right.


Good lord, I'm on a rampage............

Ahhh yes unlicensed dealers, aka criminals who will still be in operation even when legitimate ffl dealers are put out of business and private ownership of wepons is a thing of the past.

Hmmm ask DC how the whole gun control thing is working. Seriously for a city with such draconian anti gun laws there seems to be a shitload of gun related crime and violent crime.

I won't actually argue this one with people who there is no hope of converting, but if your interested compare the violent crime rate to the population percentages carrying weapons legally in the U.S. and then take those crime numbers over the past 15 years since states began coming on line with CCW permits and see which direction they are trending. Believe it or not the fear of dying over a few dollars and a credit card or two in someones wallet has actully worked. You will have to factor out the amount of crime related to gang warfare and narcoticts though because those have been on the rise, aka criminal on criminal crime, if you are an honest citizen not up to something nefarious in Tulsa you are actually safer now then you were 10 years ago, but our criminal on criminal crime rate numbers have increased as gangs have grown and fight over territory.

I won't argue with practicality and I'm not opposed to CCL (my dad has one).  I'll grant you that one, BP.

What I find interesting is the fact that Canada has as many guns per capita as we do, but a significantly lower rate of gun violence.  In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore makes the argument that it's not the guns that are the problem, it's our society's tolerance and encouragement of macho attitudes and acceptance of violence at all levels. 

Ahhhh the Michael Moore qoute,

I can't argue that point since I have not seen the movie, tried to watch it but I find Moore personally disgusting and offensive. An individual fullyt deserved of a good ole mob lynching if there ever was one in my opinion.

It is my understanding that he takes the lunatic fringe view of people like wilson and presents them as the mainstream views of republicans.

I am going to have to look on the canadian gun figures, my understanding was shotguns and long rifles only for civillians in canada.

BP: I couldn't agree more about Moore.

As far as the guns, you are correct, Canada, Ozzy land, and England allow long rifles and shotguns, but personal sidearms are out of the question.

if 90% of folks carry sidearms and .01% of people attempt bank/liquor store robberies, we've got em out gunned. i'm for MORE guns, MORE education, and BETTER marksmanship.

no law will ever prevent criminals from doing anything, that's why we call them criminals !

I can assure you with 100% certainty that no one will ever rob my house successfully.  I like it that way.

Quote from: spcterry on March 10, 2008, 06:19:00 AM
BP: I couldn't agree more about Moore.

As far as the guns, you are correct, Canada, Ozzy land, and England allow long rifles and shotguns, but personal sidearms are out of the question.

We're allowed handguns, but limited to .38 cal or 9mm in max size, larger for black powder, no personal carry allowed.

I'm not a big Obama fan, but he's just miles ahead of Clinton in terms of character, ethics, and positions.  I know their voting records are almost identical, but the two of them put together haven't even been in the Senate for a decade.

Honestly, an amalgam of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul probably best represent my interests.  I dislike Kucinich's views on nuclear power, 2nd amendment, and the fairness doctrine, and Paul's views on religion's place in government and most federal agencies (the FDA in particular), but foreign policy-wise, both are just leagues better than the rest.  I really want to see one or both of them get a cabinet-level position in the next administration but there's basically no chance of that happening.

The thing I like most about both of them is their willingness to do things that actually benefit the individual citizen, regardless of how unpopular those things are.  Paul wants to see some accountability for what the Fed is doing to our economy - he's already starting to look like a visionary on this with the massive collapse of the dollar and the impending recession.  Kucinich is pushing for impeachment of duck Cheney, and with the major gaps in White House records the only thing that I dislike about that is that the charges would never stick - these guys have shredded years' worth of their emails already.

persoanally Obama strikes me as one of them "too good to be true" kiinda things. something just seems a bit off about him. i won't vote for him. i don't like the fact that Mcain thinks we should continue on the same path we're on as a country. moron.  i'm not a huge clinton fan but i must say that during bill's tour in the office our economy wasnt too shabby. 

Quote from: jserio on March 10, 2008, 08:55:02 PM
persoanally Obama strikes me as one of them "too good to be true" kiinda things. something just seems a bit off about him. i won't vote for him. i don't like the fact that Mcain thinks we should continue on the same path we're on as a country. moron.  i'm not a huge clinton fan but i must say that during bill's tour in the office our economy wasnt too shabby. 

So wait...this means you're voting for Clinton?  Hillary is not Bill...I also don't trust Obama to do everything he says he will do, but he's certainly a lot more trustworthy than Clinton.  The amount of times she has gone back on her word to try to win this election is mind-numbing.  She swore an oath not to campaign in states that violated the DNC rules for primaries, and then deliberately campaigned and left her name on the Michigan and Florida ballots - the only candidate to do so.  And now she's saying she "won" those states.

Either way we Go we Are F^$%ed.What's it Matter?

Think I'll stock up on Guns and Ammo before Nov.

as i've stated in previous posts, i'd like for there to be a "none of the above" place on our ballots. f%$k, maybe i should vote for nader. damn. isn't that pathetic? if we vote mccain, well, we will still stay in iraq and the economy will still be shaZam!. if we  vote for either dem then well, we may loose our guns and we'll become f%$king pansies in the eyes of our global friends/enemies. shaZam!. can i be president?

You will see anti-gun legislation come out of a McCain presidency as well, The senator runs on a republican ticket but his interpertation of the second ammmendment differs from that of conservatives.

Now some say hand Hilary or Obama the Nation and that'll tech the republican party that it needs to move back to the ideals held within it from the Reagan years. You can pencil in a vote for a cndidtae of your choice or you could vote for a 3rd party candidate. As much as I detest McCain's stance on many point's he does have some proper conservative viewpoint's and I will personally vote for the lesser of the 3 evils.

Thank you BP I know Who I'll be Voting for in Nov.

am in the process of starting one wiht clinton AND obama , and wil do one for mccain also, so i leave NO one out 

can harrison ford be president?