21
   

NRA Releases Anti-Obama Ads

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:07 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
This is one of the weird attack ads. Obama's pandered on guns and is on record saying "I’m not going to take away your guns" but they still portray him as someone who would be "the most anti-gun president in American history" and these ads are "airing in Pennsylvania, with more planned in Colorado, New Mexico and elsewhere".

Here is one of their ads:

[flash width=480 height=390]http://blip.tv/play/Ac6yA4L1Gw[/flash]

To me it seems that the NRA is as much the National Republican Association as it is the National Rifle Association these days.


Not sure how I missed this thread before. Anyway, Obama has a very long record of opposing the Second Amendment in every respect. When he says he supports the Second Amendment he is lying.

I can't see the ad (if is even still available) as I don't display movies in my browser, but most likely all the NRA did was tell the truth about Obama's record.

The reason that guns rights organizations almost always support the Republicans, is because it is almost always only the Republicans who support the Second Amendment.

That said, not every Democrat is against the Second Amendment. Nancy Pelosi has already told the Obama Administration what they can do with their planned assault on our Constitution. She cares about the Second Amendment even though Obama doesn't.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
And here's the truth (from the Obama website):

Quote:
Barack Obama recognizes the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters and anglers. Were it not for their contributions, including those of great icons like Theodore Roosevelt, our nation would not have the sound game management and extensive estate of public lands available to sportsmen. Obama will make sportsmen and their priorities a centerpiece of his land and water conservation agenda.

Barack Obama is committed to upholding the Second Amendment and promoting policies that will protect wildlife habitat and ensure that hunters and anglers have access to open spaces for generations to come.


Actually that was a lie from Obama's website. Obama hates the Second Amendment with a passion.

Thankfully though, Nancy Pelosi is pro-Second Amendment for real.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Ok.....but he wants to support HIS version of the 2nd amendment right?

Where does he stand on firearms for self-defense?

Has he renounced his support of BANNING ALL semi-automatic firearms (including probably 70% of all handguns and over 2/3s of all rifles)


He never supported that, which you know.

Christ, Maporsche, what does he have to do to convince you? He's directly said 'I'm not interested in taking your guns away.' I think you just don't want to be convinced for various reasons.

Cycloptichorn


I don't know if Obama supported that, but he called for a federal law prohibiting state governments from issuing concealed carry permits to anyone other than police or former police.

He actually voted for a federal ban on FMJ ammo in an attempt to do away with cheap military surplus ammo (said ban didn't pass into law).

He also has often called for bans of assault weapons, which are protected by the Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:19 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
That's what I find to be disingenuous about it. I think the NRA wants to use its gun rights activists as political tools in a larger battle against liberal politics in general.


Nah. The NRA is just opposed to politicians that hate the Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Obama said he'll protect the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, but some people would rather create issues from their imagination and apply them to Obama. Fear works for conservatives.


Obama's extremely long anti-gun record is not imaginary.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 08:01 am
@oralloy,
You must feel naked now that Obama has taken all your guns away oralloy.

Which day did he take them away?
Did he come personally to do it?

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 08:18 am
@parados,
Its only been 41 days parados & he's already brought up the assault weapons ban, give him time.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 03:53 pm
@maporsche,
Sure.. and no one had guns when the assault weapons ban was in place the first time, did they?


Oh. wait.. This is all about NRA nuts that don't know their ass from the end of a gun.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 04:24 pm
@parados,
Yeah, not what I said at all (you do that a lot, I'm noticing).
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 07:43 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Sure.. and no one had guns when the assault weapons ban was in place the first time, did they?

Oh. wait.. This is all about NRA nuts that don't know their ass from the end of a gun.


Childish name calling isn't necessary is it?

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between "banning assault weapons" and "banning every gun in existence".

Banning guns that we have the right to have is completely unacceptable.



I will admit being very pleasantly surprised at Nancy Pelosi though. She made it pretty clear that she supports the Second Amendment.

I'm still beyond pissed over the Michigan primary, but if Congressional Democrats hold the line on keeping Obama from violating the Second Amendment, I'm going to need to figure out a way to reward them next election.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 07:46 pm
@oralloy,
Agreed orallay. Pelosi and any congressperson who helps stop this will earn major props in my eyes.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 03:37 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Hey, Walter, why don't you learn about your own country's History. I know you don't know a thing about Israel since you did not even know that Nethanyahu was going to be PM. I had to inform you.

You obviously don't know very much about the murderous Anti-Semitic Adolf Hitler either. Are you an apologist?

According to William L. Shirer, in his classic--"The Rise and Fall of the Third ReichPP> 897--Hitler told the Reichstag that "this man alone" backed by the millionaires and the Jews was "responsible for the second world war".
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 03:50 pm
It would be RACIST to jail the black and Hispanic scumbags who fire the weapons. I never saw weapons that shoot by themselves. But in Chicago's ghettos, where the Community Organizer, Barack Obama, nurtured and cossetted the vicious inner city gang members, the black aldermen, the black judges, the black prosecutors, the black bureaucrats,see to it that the charges which should put the murderers away, are plea bargained away.

Civil Rights, you know!
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 03:52 pm
Maporsche wrote:

Re: parados (Post 3589427)
Yeah, not what I said at all (you do that a lot, I'm noticing.

********************************************************************

The reason he does that,Maporsche, is that he is completely unable to rebut an argument. He is, I am afraid, suffering from some kind of neural disorder which prevents him from using logic. Poor fellow!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 04:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
No, he has been quoted as being in favor of allowing states to pass laws in their jurisdictions limiting rights. And that's perfectly appropriate. The analogy he used - zoning laws - was fair.


This bears repeating. The analogy isn't even necessary. In The United States versus Cruikshank (1875) and in Presser versus Illinois (1888), the Court stated explicitly that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but does not bind the states. In the former case the majority opinion wrote that the second amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In the latter opinion, the Court wrote: "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

Any claims about Obama being dishonest or anti-gun because he supports the right of states to legislate in these matters runs into the problem that he is only articulating the position taken by the Supreme Court.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 07:07 pm
@Setanta,
Of course, Federalism lives..escept when it comes to the rights of homosexuals and the rights of abortionists.

Let's get real..N o Hypocrasy please!
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 08:59 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

This bears repeating. The analogy isn't even necessary. In The United States versus Cruikshank (1875) and in Presser versus Illinois (1888), the Court stated explicitly that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but does not bind the states. In the former case the majority opinion wrote that the second amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In the latter opinion, the Court wrote: "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

Any claims about Obama being dishonest or anti-gun because he supports the right of states to legislate in these matters runs into the problem that he is only articulating the position taken by the Supreme Court.


Not the argument to use, here, Setana.

Cruikshank and Presser were both cases where the state used laws to disarm, in one case, blacks at the behest of the KKK and in the other, a labor organizer.

In the recent Heller decision, the Court actually cited Cruikshank and Presser (and Miller) in supporting their decision to overturn the Washington DC gun ban.

This does leave open the question of individual states imposing their own gun ban laws, as DC is not a state as was ruled on as a federal district. Many legal wonks believe, though, that Heller will set precedence for the 2nd Amendment to be respected throughout the country.

Interesting, we don't hear about California (yet) or other states passing laws restricting our 1st Amendment rights, although back in Holmes day that certainly wasn’t a problem, was it? Wink
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 09:24 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Quote:
No, he has been quoted as being in favor of allowing states to pass laws in their jurisdictions limiting rights. And that's perfectly appropriate. The analogy he used - zoning laws - was fair.


This bears repeating. The analogy isn't even necessary. In The United States versus Cruikshank (1875) and in Presser versus Illinois (1888), the Court stated explicitly that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but does not bind the states. In the former case the majority opinion wrote that the second amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In the latter opinion, the Court wrote: "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

Any claims about Obama being dishonest or anti-gun because he supports the right of states to legislate in these matters runs into the problem that he is only articulating the position taken by the Supreme Court.


It is only a matter of time (and not very much time at that) before the Supreme Court makes the Second Amendment binding to state and local governments.

But I would see no problem with calling Obama anti-gun even if he did confine his draconian anti-gun views to local jurisdictions.

I note though, that when Obama ran for the US Senate in 2004, he called for a federal statute that would bar state governments from issuing concealed weapons permits to anyone other than retired police officers.

And while in the US senate, Obama voted for an amendment that would have imposed a federal ban on military surplus ammo in common assault rifle calibers (the amendment didn't pass).

So I count Obama's claim that he only hates our freedom "on a local level" to be just another one of his lies.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 11:25 pm
oralloy wrote:

But I would see no problem with calling Obama anti-gun even if he did confine his draconian anti-gun views to local jurisdictions.

I note though, that when Obama ran for the US Senate in 2004, he called for a federal statute that would bar state governments from issuing concealed weapons permits to anyone other than retired police officers.

And while in the US senate, Obama voted for an amendment that would have imposed a federal ban on military surplus ammo in common assault rifle calibers (the amendment didn't pass).

So I count Obama's claim that he only hates our freedom "on a local level" to be just another one of his lies.

end of quote

and when Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he voted against Senate Bill 2165--a bill designed by the Senate to allow residents of ILLINOIS to keep weapons in their homes to defend themselves. The vote was 38-20. OBAMA was one of the twenty to vote against the measure. So much for Obama being on the side of states --as oralloy said-JUST ANOTHER OF HIS LIES.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 11:28 pm
The pinhead, Setanta, who thinks he knows it all wrote:
quote
Any claims about Obama being dishonest or anti-gun because he supports the right of states to legislate in these matters runs into the problem that he is only articulating the position taken by the Supreme Court.
end of quote
He may support the right of states all right but as I pointed out in the last post, he was anti-gun when he was a state senator. Just another way to be disingenous.

Obama looks like he may beat out Slick Willie in his ability to parse the english language.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 12:00:50