Obama: 'I don’t believe people should be able to own guns'

Barack Obama tells us he supports Second Amendment gun rights.

But then, he's also told us domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was just "a guy in my neighborhood"...before he told us he didn't know about Ayers' terrorist past...before he told us he thought Ayers had been "rehabilitated."

Like he also told us the cutoff for his middle-class-lovin', rich-folks-hatin' tax cuts was at $250,000...before we started hearing that cutoff drop to $200,000...then $150,000.

Like we heard in the presidential debates that Obama opposes "gay marriage"...while his campaign website says he plans to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and push pro-homosexual "hate crime" legislation, and his wife Michelle says they're going to push homosexual adoptions.

So, Obama supports gun rights? That's not what he told author John Lott.

Free Republic has a transcript of an interview of Lott by Dave Bose when Bose was substituting on the Michael Medved Show.

John Lott: We were both at the University of Chicago. I was first in the business school and then I taught in the law school and I was there for like, five years. He was a lecturer there and – I don’t know – there were probably a couple of dozen times or whatever that we exchanged words. I saw him at a couple of seminars. I ran into and talked to people that were nearby him. One of the things though, is that the conversations all tended to be extremely short when I was involved with him.

John Lott: The first time I met him, I went over and introduced myself. He said, “Oh, you’re the gun guy.”

John Lott: And I said, “Yeah, I guess so.”

John Lott: And he said, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

And Lott reiterates Obama's statement:

John Lott: Yeah, that he said, “I do not believe people should be able to own guns.”

Dave Bose: Okay

John Lott: I mean, if you just take the gun issue for a second, here’s a guy that when the supreme court decision came down at the end of June, said that the Supreme Court was merely confirming his own position on guns, that he believed that it was an individual right, that he always believed that it was, and that he apparently opposed the DC gun ban.

John Lott: The problem is you can find him making numerous statements prior to the Supreme Court decision where he said that he supported the DC gun ban. There are interviews that he did before the so-called Potomac Primaries in the spring, involving Maryland, Virginia, and DC, where he was interviewed on TV about that and he said quite firmly and emphatically that he was in favor of the ban. You have statements in the Chicago Tribune last fall.

John Lott: But overall, Obama has, there’s no doubt that he’s the most anti-gun presidential candidate that’s ever been nominated. In 1996 there was a candidate issue statement when he was first running for the state senate saying that he supported a ban on handguns. In 1998 there was a similar candidate statement saying that he supported a ban on semi-automatic guns. He supported legislation that would ban the sale of guns within five miles of any school or park, essentially banning virtually guns from being sold any place in virtually all of the states in the United States. There’s many other types of similar statements that one could go through on that.

What it really boils down to is that Obama knows he's way too liberal for most Americans, so he has to "revise" history a little bit so you'll think he won't threaten your Second Amendment freedom.

With a track record on honesty and forthrightness like Obama's, are you ready to trust him with the Second Amendment?

Obama Opposes Gun Rights

Barack Obama has stated repeatedly during this presidential campaign his support for the Second Amendment Rights of Americans, but his past record and his use of clever, but non-specific terminology, say otherwise. When he talks about “common sense” gun laws he means things like required trigger locks on all guns in the home, which would make those guns mostly useless if actually needed for defense. The following are some of the other “common sense” measures he has supported:
• Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03
• Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.
• Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04
• Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99
• Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05 •
Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04
(NRA-ILA)



Naturally, Obama supporters will call the video above ridiculous "scare tactics." Look at Obama's record and decide for yourself if you, a gun owner and advocate of the right of self-defense, have a reason to be concerned about what an Obama administration will mean to us. Consider also the likelihood that Obama will have a Congress lead by Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and many other notorious gun-grabbers. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right of ultimate authority over government, by threat of armed revolt if they should seek to usurp authority not granted by the Constitution. Obama, supported by George Soros, will seek to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights. He may do it incrementally with "common sense" restrictions, but the goal is a disarmed citizenry with all power centralized in Washington.

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate

Last update: 1:06 a.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2008
CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:
Fellow Sportsman,
Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.
I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.
Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.
In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.
That's the Barack Obama I know.
The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.
WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org
SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association
http://www.isra.org

Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment

As my fellow Dakota Voice publisher Dr. Theo has already highlighted, the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated and affirmed what most Americans (outside liberal circles) have known for more than 200 years: Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, per the Second Amendment.

From the Dallas Morning News:

The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.

But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts

At the heart of this case was the 32-year ban D.C. has had on handguns.

The Second Amendment, by its language, is primarily focused on the security of the state. Sometimes in dire circumstances the people may be required to defend the country from outside threat. And in the event tyrannical elements from within our country ever seized power, the people would need their arms to take back their country.

In expounding on the "militia" statement in the Second Amendment, Scalia said that unlike armies and navies, "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," and that "the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

With regard to the reason why this militia is necessary to the security of a free state, Scalia said, "First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections...Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

In ages past, firearms were often necessary to obtain food, and this has certainly been a justification for the necessity of the right to bear arms, but it is not the primary one.

But the right to self-defense is an even more fundamental right, one going back to the days of swords and even clubs. Police are the proper authority for dealing with the criminal element, but as a former cop I can tell you, the police can't be everywhere at once. And a lot can happen in the several minutes it takes to respond to a 911 call.

Of self-defense, Scalia said:

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

I haven't read the full decision yet, but the limitations mentioned by Scalia seem reasonable. Just as you can't yell "fire" in a theater or slander someone, there are reasonable limits to everything. I don't think people need a nuke or an aircraft carrier for home defense.

Will the Second Amendment Be Upheld?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson

The United States Supreme Court will hear opening remarks in the case of District of Columibia v. Heller tomorrow, March 18th. A Colorado University law professor, Scott Moss, believes this will be a seminal case that will finally decide whether the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals or only to the States' right to form militias.

The case is that of a citizen of Washington, DC, Richard Heller, claiming a constitutional right to keep a weapon, specifically a hand-gun, for his personal protection. The District of Columbia has some of the most restictive laws regarding legal gun ownership of any municipality and have denied his application.

The case of the District of Columbia versus Heller not only will decide whether Washington, D.C., can keep its handgun ban, but ultimately will determine the fate of gun control laws across the country. Remarkably, this case is likely to be the first time the Supreme Court, in its over two centuries of interpreting the constitution, truly will have to decide, once and for all, whether the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ rights to own guns or protects only states’ rights to maintain armed police forces and militias, writes Professor Moss.

All of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights pertain to individual rights and restrain the actions of the federal government, so an interpretation of the Second Amendment as anything other than an individual right would be in contravention of the spirit of the other articles. We can only hope and pray that the current court led by Justice Roberts will adhere to a direct constructionist interpretation of what seems to be plain English to most Americans and decide on the right of individuals to keep arms for protection and to prevent government tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson said with only a bit of satire,

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."