doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

I think this is newsworthy:

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

I think it's BS. But if that side has to win, I'll take him over Hillary.

I've dealt directly with Obama on the issue of guns. It was back when he was in the state legislature. Even at that time he said he believed there was an individual right to own guns (unlike Hillary). However, he believes it can be subject to extensive restriction--including bans on classes of guns. In fact it was never clear what restriction he believed would go too far and be unconstitutional.

DH

And Ted Kennedy is his main backer? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm..........

I can't believe McCain being from the state of Arizona and being anti-gun. I thought he fought in Viet Nam to protect American's rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I wonder what liberals would say if a conservative claimed to believe in abortion rights but that abortion could be restricted in the same way? Let's put the same restrictions on abortion and the first amendment like the second amendment. After all, "no right is absolute, and all are subject to reasonable restrictions". Would the liberals accept this person as pro-abortion or pro-first amendment? NOT! They would go absolutely NUTS!

Obama is a board memeber of the Joyce Foundation, a rabid anti-gun organization.

What is "common sense" and "reasonable" is a fluid term. The real question is reasonable to whom? Guns have been around longer than this nation has been in existence. So, why are we constantly seeing these senseless violent public attacks only within the last few years? Back in the 70's and 80's the media stopped publishing or mentioning the names of streakers at major sporting and public events because all they wanted was to get attention and have their names in the news. Now when someone pops a cork and goes on a rampage, their life gets analyzed in the media for a month. The kid in Nebraska who shot up that mall said more than he realized in his suicide note when he said "Now I'll be famous..."

The problem is our rotten culture, which is dominated by the liberal media and the liberal so-called entertainment industry. The violence in this nation corolates with the violence in our media and long term exposure to it.

It speaks volumes about the Republican party that the best they can do is come up with the retread McCain.

I can't stand Democrats, and I can't stand Orama Barama, but it's hard to argue that McCain will beat him out if it comes to that. Barama has about 2000 times more vitality and I think America is a country that rewards vitality.

It coming and its coming in November regardless of who wins this election the gun owners will be in their sights.

I sat in on a committe meeting about a gun ban bill in the Illionois legislature and Obama was on that committee. After listening to the questions he asked the NRA lawyer, it was obvious he was anti-gun. There is no doubt about it, he would take your guns given the chance.

Well, he has a "volunteer office" down in Houston, TX that's decorated with a Cuban flag . . . which bears an image of Che Guevara. When told about it, Obama did not suggest that his people should take down the flag. Wonder if that means he supports the individual right to keep and bear arms in the same way Fidel and Che have??

As for McCain on the Republican ticket, I look at it this way: if McCain were no worse than the Dem nominee on every other issue on the table (and I think he's better on several), I would vote for him anyhow because of his stance on the war on terror. Conservatives have chosen to throw away their votes before--like on Perot in 92, because GHW Bush committed the sin of going back on his word about not raising taxes. Just what did that get us? 8 years of Clinton, and severe cuts in the military and the intelligence community that have made it much more difficult to fight the war on terror.

I guess that makes me a national security conservative more than a fiscal or social conservative. But McCain gets my vote. He wasn't afraid to criticize Rumsfeld's strategy, and he got on board with the surge--which has worked--from the start. I vote to support the troops, and that gives McCain my vote.