# To Dog Owners Who Support Obama



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

To Dog Owners Who Support Obama

Is Your Freedom To Own Dogs The Most Important Issue?

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

The 2008 presidential election has become emotionally charged for dog owners, resulting in a virtual brick wall that divides supporters of Democrat Barack Obama from those of Republican John McCain. The two candidates present a stark contrast in both style and substance.

As the campaign draws to a close, neither side seems willing to listen to the other.

We are asking Obama supporters to hear us out, but want to be up front from the beginning. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is opposed to Obama's candidacy because of his close relationship with the Humane Society of the United States and his political alliances with several key animal rights movement supporters in Congress. We also think he has been dishonest about
his views regarding hunting and firearms, and these are issues of major importance to many of our members.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this election as a watershed for animal owners. We think that its outcome will determine the future of the private ownership of animals in America.

We are convinced that animal ownership is doomed if Obama becomes our next president.

Some people may ask if this is really important in comparison with the candidates' views on foreign policy, the economy and social issues. The truth is that animal issues have played no role in this election for mainstream voters, because the news media, political pundits and politicians
have not identified them as important.

But they are important to us.

We also believe that these issues should be important to everyone, because the way Obama would implement the animal rights agenda is a perfect microcosm of his views on the future of America. Those views accurately predict Obama's approach to foreign policy, the economy and social issues.

Throughout American history, animal ownership has been regarded as a personal choice. Each individual has had the freedom to own animals or not, to eat them or not, to enjoy them or not, and to hunt or not to hunt.

It has been freedom based on the idea of "live and let live." You do your thing, and I'll do mine.

The principle was to create a society that is based on the maximum possible amount of freedom for each American to live the way that he or she chooses.

America was founded on the simple yet radical principle that the purpose of human life was to be happy. The Declaration of Independence used the words "pursuit of happiness" as a vital aspect of freedom. What makes a person happy was seen as each person's private choice. Government was seen to exist only as a way to ensure the greatest opportunity to make and pursue personal choices.

"Happiness" was not mentioned specifically in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because it was seen as a given. Those documents attempted to create a government that provided the greatest possible opportunity to pursue choices in one's life, and to protect Americans from both foreign and domestic threats to our freedom to make personal choices and live our lives accordingly.

All of the complex protections of due process, voting rights, civil rights, checks and balances on political power, and redress to the courts boil down to exactly that: Protecting our freedom to make and live by personal choices.

Our relationship with animals is one of the choices each of us has had the freedom to make and live by. It was part of our American identity, and still is for most of us.

It was all about the freedom of the individual.

In the Twentieth Century, however, a new philosophy swept over much of the planet: Collectivism. It boils down to a belief that "social good" is more important than the individual. It defines benefit to society as a higher value than benefit to the individual.

It was a philosophy of sacrifice, maintaining that each person should be willing to sacrifice him or herself to "the greater good," which was defined by the collective. In real life, the collective usually translates into government and those who have the power to influence it.

This philosophy was at the heart of Marxist/Leninist thought, and it also was the underpinning of Nazi ideology. In both cases, the collective - that is, government - became the sole arbiter of how people must live. Government existed under the pretext that its job was to define and promote the common good. This was seen as the highest value - not freedom!

Collectivism actually is a very old idea that reached its greatest influence during the Medieval Period of European history, when the concept of individual freedom was viewed as heretical. During the Dark Ages, the purpose of human life was to serve and glorify the monarchy and the church. A belief in basic human rights and individualism often led to being burned at the stake.

In light of this historical background, the American emphasis on personal freedom was truly revolutionary. It's core belief is that the job of government is to protect freedom so that people could live the way they choose. Many people mistakenly believe that this was meant only to protect people from religious and political oppression.

In fact, it was meant to protect the individual from any kind of oppression that threatens the individual pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. The right to own and enjoy property was a major issue for the founding fathers, as this is basic to the freedom to pursue happiness.

Obama represents the modern reincarnation of collectivist thought, and his views and alliances on animal rights issues illustrate this clearly.

The endorsement of Obama's candidacy by the radical Humane Society of the United States should send up a hailstorm of red flags for anyone who values individual freedom. The HSUS ideology embraces collectivism in its purest form.

Without exception, every political position advocated by HSUS boils down to a belief that individuals have an obligation to society to sacrifice individual freedom in order to achieve the "common good" - as defined by HSUS. Every HSUS position tells animal owners that they must sacrifice their own freedom in order to pay for the sins of a few people who treat animals
callously.

For example, everyone knows that there are a few bad "puppy mills" in America that should not be allowed to exist. All of us would agree with that statement, including owners of commercial breeding kennels.

But HSUS argues that these few bad kennels make every breeder of dogs suspect, and that this requires "Big Brother" to look over his or her shoulder in order to protect dogs from exploitation. It is like saying that we shouldn't enjoy our supper because people are starving in Ethiopia, or that all parents should be licensed and inspected because a few of them abuse their children.

The fallacy of this argument is easy to see. All of its premises are utterly illogical.

It assumes that government is somehow morally superior to individuals, and that government can be trusted more than people. Read any history book for an hour and the flaws of this argument become apparent. Throughout history, government has been the greatest oppressor of people, animals and the Earth itself - by far! I doubt if Al Capone harmed as many people as the average corrupt restaurant inspector in Chicago.

It assumes that the answer to bad government is more government. HSUS and Obama believe that current laws are not being enforced. Their answer is to create new laws, which is a laughable example of intellectual absurdity. The answer to bad government is to make it work better, not to create new laws and bureaucracies whose only purpose is to burden and oppress good people.

It assumes that exploitation of animals is the norm, rather than the rare exception. Anyone who raises dogs knows that this is absurd. The lives of dogs have never been better at any time in human history. They are beloved members of millions of American families, most breeders dedicate their entire lives to their animals, and thousands of dedicated rescue people save
the lives of millions of dogs that are doomed to suffering and death in government-run animal shelters.

Would you want the fate of your dog to rest in the hands of any government-run animal shelter in America?

And yet, HSUS and Obama see government as the answer.

Obama's well-documented belief that government is the answer to America's problems is at the heart of our objection to his candidacy.

For example, every improvement in the lives of dogs in America is solely because individual people have made personal and ethical choices that benefit their animals.

No improvement of any kind can be attributed to the actions of government.

Each political victory by HSUS and its allies in government has resulted in terrible suffering for animals. For example, the HSUS-backed ban on domestic horse slaughter has led to tens of thousands of horses being trucked to Mexico, where they are slaughtered under the most inhumane conditions imaginable. Every mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has led to the terrible
deaths of thousands of abandoned pets at the hands of government-run animal control programs.

Compassion for animals is one of the highest human virtues. It happens only through the dedication of individuals. Compassion and government are mutually exclusive concepts.

The HSUS endorsement of Obama is but the tip of the iceberg.

Consider that his primary political mentor, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, has been the major proponent of anti-dog-owner animal rights legislation in Congress. Durbin is the sponsor of the current "PUPS" legislation that would extend the heavy arm of federal bureaucracy into most kennels in America, and also was the author of the failed amendment to the Pet Animal Welfare
Act that was attached to the 2008 Farm Bill.

Obama's main allies in Congress read like a "Who's Who" of radical animal rights activism: defeated Sen. Rick Santorum (author of the failed PAWS legislation three years ago), Sen. Diane Feinstein, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Ted Kennedy and several others. Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, consistently gets 100% HSUS ratings.

The Obama ticket is an animal rights dream team.

Please remember, too, that political endorsements and support come with a price tag. We believe that price tag includes:

* Support for federal animal rights legislation to restrict dog ownership and virtually eliminate the breeding of companion animals. A federal spay/neuter mandate is likely, as are prohibitions about using dogs for hunting, herding or in competitive events. These are all parts of the HSUS agenda.

* Support for the camouflaged but very real HSUS agenda of forcing America into becoming a vegetarian society. This would be done by increasing federal regulation of farming, ranching and slaughterhouses with the goal of making meat, milk and eggs too expensive for most people to afford.

* The gradual elimination of hunting, both by outlawing specific kinds of hunting and also by changing policy to eliminate hunting as a tool in wildlife management.

* Naming HSUS-sanctioned people to be the new Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior, and also filling many administrative and leadership vacancies in both Departments with HSUS-anointed personnel.

* Creating a federal task force to study and recommend legislation on animal issues that is heavily weighted toward HSUS.

* Nominating pro-HSUS judges to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and federal district courts. Even if judicial nominees don't have a track record on animal issues, it is likely that most of the nominees will strongly support the concept of federal intervention on
social issues, and strong opposition to the concept of private property and the rights of individuals.

* And, based on Obama's track record as an Illinois state senator and his endorsement by gun control groups this year, many restrictions on the right to own firearms are likely. This also is a major goal of HSUS.

When it comes to political paybacks, to the victor go the spoils.

The HSUS Legislative Fund's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to endorse Obama. This is the first time ever that HSUS has endorsed a candidate for president, and this says a lot about the importance of Obama to HSUS.

This endorsement didn't happen out of the blue. Our review of the HSUS questionnaire submitted by Obama shows clearly that he actively sought the endorsement. He wanted it. He went after it. Obama stated his total acceptance of every HSUS position on dozens of different pieces of animal rights legislation. He did not disagree with any of them.

As dog owners, we cannot ethically support any candidate who is in 100-percent agreement with HSUS.

Here is how the HSUS announcement describes Obama:

" Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal shelters, to promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently co-sponsored multiple bills to combat animal fighting and horse slaughter, and has supported efforts to increase funding for adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal
fighting and puppy mills.

"In his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and said he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to make their policies more humane.."

That statement is a nightmare come true for dog owners, farmers and hunters. It also is a nightmare for any American who believes in the sanctity of individual freedom.

An Obama victory, especially by the wide margin now shown in the polls, would place collectivists in firm control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Obama and HSUS would be able to get almost any law they want.

What all of those laws will mean is that government will not respect your freedom to make and live by your personal choices. You will be required to sacrifice your life to the collectivist ideal of "total animal liberation."

That means the elimination of almost all breeding of dogs. That means tight restrictions on the ownership of dogs. That means laws making it impossible to raise food animals, or for most people to be able to afford to buy animal products. It means the destruction of hunting and gun ownership.

It will all happen in the name of the "common good," as defined by HSUS and Obama.

The animal rights agenda is a totalitarian philosophy to force you to sacrifice your life to achieve the political goals of HSUS. Obama quite clearly has signed on to that agenda, and his signature is written in your
blood.

Like most totalitarians, HSUS favors only "top down" leadership. For example, they know it is hopeless to try to convince Americans not to eat meat or to raise dogs. They don't even bother to try. Instead, HSUS pushes for laws aimed at making it impossible for Americans to afford to eat meat or raise dogs.

The strategy is to gradually remove meat and dogs from the lives of a large majority of Americans, until the day when those things don't matter any more. At that time, they will be politically able to achieve their long-range goal of the complete elimination of animal ownership in America.

Obama is a key part of that strategy, because of his willingness to support "do-gooder" animal rights legislation, even though very few Americans are asking for those laws. The animal rights movement is not a popular uprising of political sentiment. Instead, it is an elitist movement that reflects the view of only a small but politically well connected percentage of the population.

Through his support of HSUS, Obama has shown clearly that he is an elitist who is willing to impose the extreme views of a small minority on America to achieve a collectivist goal. If he will do it about dogs, he will do it about any social or political issue.

Freedom is his enemy. Personal choice is his enemy.

Collectivism is all about using governmental power to force people to conform.

In that light, we are especially concerned with the power Obama will have to nominate Supreme Court justices, and other federal appeals court and district judges.

The constitutional system of checks and balances sees the courts as the citizens' final avenue of redress when their rights are infringed upon by the legislative and executive branches of government. The courts are meant to be a check of that power.

For dog owners, the courts are our last line of defense against bad laws that take away our rights to own and enjoy animals.

Obama will nominate the kind of judges who will be inclined to limit individual liberty in order to achieve collectivist social goals. They will believe that individuals must sacrifice personal freedom in order to create someone else's idea of a better world. They will see the right to own and enjoy personal property as something evil.

This year's Supreme Court case about firearms rights illustrates this viewpoint. In this case, gun control advocates tried to claim that individual rights do not exist. Instead, they attempted to say that there are only "collective rights" of the American people as a whole - as they define them.

This was the actual argument used by Obama's allies to try to say that the Second Amendment does not apply to you and me, but only to an undefined "us."

Obama has claimed that he is not opposed to firearms ownership and hunting. We believe he is not telling the truth, and is really saying that he is not opposed to his definition of acceptable firearms ownership and hunting.

His track record as an Illinois state senator shows this clearly, and we are indebted to Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson for making this important information available to the voters. He was the ISRA's chief lobbyist during the years when Obama was a state senator in Illinois.

Here are excerpts from Pearson's account of Obama:

"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."

Firearms issues are important to many of our members, and probably half of them are hunters. We also recognize that many dog owners do not own guns or want to own them.

However, we believe Second Amendment issues are important to all Americans. If a politician is willing to destroy even one of our freedoms, then none of them are safe. To compromise one part of the Bill of Rights is to endanger all of them.

Firearms issues also are important in understanding the collectivist mindset. Because an infinitesimally small percentage of firearms owners are criminals, collectivists believe that the other 99.99-percent should sacrifice themselves for the "common good."

The call to sacrifice extends even unto freedom itself.

We cannot support any political candidate who has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice any of our basic American rights. Obama has shown that willingness and, we believe, fully embraces collectivist calls for the sacrifice of the rights of innocent individuals in order to achieve his
social goals.

It is a mindset that would willingly destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of American farmers, dog professionals, hunters, dog owners, hobbyists and the tens of thousands of people whose jobs depend on them, in order to impose Obama's vision of a "New World Order" on America.

We believe Obama would destroy those people without batting an eyelash. He would see himself as the righteous defender of animals, but doesn't want to see the truth.

The people who own animals are the people who defend and protect them.

Animal rights groups like HSUS want to destroy them: as gently and gradually as practical, perhaps, but destroy them nonetheless.

Please do not vote for Barrack Obama.

For your dogs' sake. For your sake. For everyone's sake.

Just say no to Obama.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
[email protected] Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

Have You Joined Yet?
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

First he wants my guns, and now MY DOG?!!!

Somebody should just neuter Obama.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Your worries on this matter are premature. Obama is great on the environment and this is what we need for hunting. Development, drilling for oil and urban sprawl remove wildlife habitats. Where you will hunt? Where you will let your dog to run free? Animal rights ties with Obama are made up just like ties to a terrorist groups. Do not believe it and go for Obama. You will be proud of your vote later on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

sevendogs said:


> Your worries on this matter are premature. Obama is great on the environment and this is what we need for hunting. Development, drilling for oil and urban sprawl remove wildlife habitats. Where you will hunt? Where you will let your dog to run free? Animal rights ties with Obama are made up just like ties to a terrorist groups. Do not believe it and go for Obama. You will be proud of your vote later on.


Sevendogs, you want Obama so bad your willing to sacrifice anything I think. That was a very good piece and enjoyed it. To try down play it is to try blindfold the American people.
I thoroughly enjoyed the term "intellectual absurdity". Through life I have met many very intelligent people. Usually with advanced degrees and my observation is that specialists have such a narrow field of view that they don't understand the world that well. I have known 50 year old PhD that grew up on farms but don't know anything about their own vehicle. As a matter of fact a friend and I worked for a classmates father on the farm because he never came out of the house. He stayed in his room looking through his books all summer long.
Look out for anyone who tells you they are an intellectual. These are the people that the dog owners alliance are warning you about. They are the ones who think you need them to tell you how to run your life. Their greatest lack of understanding is in social skills. They can only surmise that you don't agree with them because you are intellectually inferior. 
This idea of intellectual superiority is what leads HSUS to attempt to dictate to our lives. That attitude is perhaps the greatest threat to our freedom. Often if they can not convince you they will lie to you with no remorse. If that doesn't work you will next see a smoke screen of issues that really are of no value. It's apparent in the current election. It's mostly apparent in the treatment of Palin. Contrast what Biden said the other day and the media response to what would have happened if Palin had said it. We all know that every media person is a supper brain right?

In ending sevendogs I would say I don't think you will see habitat improvements. A society running bankrupt often depletes (sacrifices) it's resources rapidly. If it did you may not have dogs to run, and we gun owners certainly will not have guns to use in that nirvana you think Obama will create.

Oh, a friend of mine has a quote he loves. It's: "A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing". That is back to the broad education liberals cry for. If we could relate education to a scale of degrees and arbitrarily assigned 180 degrees to a high school education a college education with a bachelors major would assume about a 50 degree arc. Masters are more specialized and would fall perhaps within a 10 degree arc. When in entomology many people doing their PhD would work on a single genus. Considering there are near a million "known" invertebrates that PhD would fall in less than a 1 degree arc. Still they try tell you about things entirely unrelated to their specialty as if they are the authorities. I actually think they know much less outside their special field.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was just wondering, is Obama vegetarian. I have met few vegetarians and most had some really goofy ideas. I know he keeps trying to hide the fact that he is a smoker. I wonder if he smokes organic tobacco?


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

quote:
We are convinced that animal ownership is doomed if Obama becomes our next president.

Thank the Lord I don't go through life being paranoid about stupid stuff like this.... what a waste of forum space. The crazy thing is there are morons that believe this crap and this will sway their votes


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What's the old quote. Your only paranoid if your wrong? Or was it your not paranoid if they realy are after you? I don't know either way it looks like Obama has close ties to animal rights. I am sure there will be some infringements on our rights. The only question would be how extensive will it be. I agree it may not be as bad as is portrayed, but it could be. It would be my guess it will be something lesser, but still very bad. 
Also keep in mind they do things incrementally. Comparing my freedom today with my freedom in 1955 and I am saddened how much I have lost. The reason they do it incrementally is that way each generation doesn't see it happen. People even 40 years old have no idea what I have experienced. The next generation will not have your perspective. Reading history will not do it. Where do you think we will be in 100 years. The nation will still be here, but neither you nor I would recognize the government and laws.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Thank the Lord I don't go through life being paranoid about stupid stuff like this.... what a waste of forum space. The crazy thing is there are morons that believe this crap and this will sway their votes


Didn't read it did you?

What part about 100% backing from the HSUS don't you understand.

Doesn't someone's past history mean anything to anyone anymore?


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Boy you guys were right... Obama is out on the campaign trail already taking away peoples pets.... I found this picture of him about to take two of those mangy mutts away from hard working republicans....










I can't believe I didn't see this coming.....


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

willythekid said:


> Boy you guys were right... Obama is out on the campaign trail already taking away peoples pets.... I found this picture of him about to take two of those mangy mutts away from hard working republicans....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sick em boys, sick em!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

What was that movie.......Sic Balls!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> willythekid said:
> 
> 
> > Boy you guys were right... Obama is out on the campaign trail already taking away peoples pets.... I found this picture of him about to take two of those mangy mutts away from hard working republicans....
> ...


barebackjack, you racist! 

(Those kind of pictures happen when you spend your entire life choreographed. )


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

I see nothing wrong with that picture. After all he's just meeting with 2 newly ACORN registered supporters. Mr and Mrs Spot.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

willythekid said:


> quote:
> We are convinced that animal ownership is doomed if Obama becomes our next president.
> 
> Thank the Lord I don't go through life being paranoid about stupid stuff like this.... what a waste of forum space. The crazy thing is there are morons that believe this crap and this will sway their votes


Agreed!
I'm not real political but have been reading much on this site and others about the race. I keep reading so much "Crap" about both these guys it gets annoying. I don't really understand how some guys jump to everything they hear and read and believe everything. Do you guys think that whomever gets elected will be able to just completely turn the rotation of the earth in four years?
Even if obama hates guns and wants to rid the country of them, do you think he'd be able to change the consitution in just 4 years?
I guess I just wonder why so many people suck up everything written when we all know how dirty these battles are and the extents each side will take to win. I haven't made a firm decision on my choice yet but I really don't get worked up about articles like this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Even if obama hates guns and wants to rid the country of them, do you think he'd be able to change the consitution in just 4 years?


Yes. Remember the second amendment in the supreme court was upheld by a single vote. During Obamas first term two maybe three supreme court justices will be appointed. Do you think he will appoint pro gun justices? Look at his record. He has stated that the second amendment is not a for private ownership it is for militia. I like to keep my gun in my house, I don't want to go to an armory and check it out from a government employee who quits work at 4:30 and I have to have my gun back before that. 
If you know how our government works then you will understand how real the threat is. It isn't just a bunch of "gun nuts" going off the deep end with a sky is falling attitude.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

I understand that, but I just don't feel he'd be able to completely amend the gun rights that fast. It would be a battle from hell for him to do this. I don't think it is a battle that any future president would want to take on especially with other crisises(sp) at hand. (war, econ)
To ammend or change a constitutional right is a rather lengthy and arduous chore that will have a huge battle.
Just because a new president comes in doesn't mean that within a week we won't be able to carry guns. It would take his term as well as a term or two after with another president with the same views to really get this done. But you are right, in time it could be done. I just have to admit that I am not overly concerned about Obamas thoughts on the second ammendment. Maybe I am not educated enough about his thoughts??
I will admit that I am registered republican but sit about in the middle. I think Obama is much too green and Mccain is a prick. I'm a little lost to who I should vote for.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I will admit that I am registered republican but sit about in the middle. I think Obama is much too green and Mccain is a prick. I'm a little lost to who I should vote for.


Obama is more than green, but I agree I'm not thrilled with McCain either.

Lets see we have a democrat president and a democrat congress, so he would have no problem getting who he wants on the supreme court. Without changing the constitution the supreme court decides that the second amendment doesn't apply to the individual but to the society as a whole in the form of a militia. It could happen within one year.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

I guess I have to respectfully disagree. There would be a major backlash throughout the country if this motion ever came up and pushed through. Nobody wants that hate on their record-- as to why it didn't pass last time. I can see items such as waiting periods and advanced background checks etc but I doubt that our guns will be taken away by Obama. I could be wrong.
As I mentioned, I think the second ammendment is and should be quite a ways back in line to what the priorities are of the state of the country.

Plainsman, I have read may of your political posts and you seem well versed in this area. I am admitedly not. I'm not a real political guru so I would never win an argument with you. But, my point is jsut that so much is read into candidates and their views. After their debates they have those fact checks and both lie and skew each others records to the point of who knows what to believe. Too many people get all bent out of shape because of something they read on a site or heard. Most info we as the public get is plain old fashioned BS.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Can we define what "radical" means as it pertains to gun regulation? If someone is okay with a background check and a waiting period for buying a gun, is that person a radical? Or, using that same example, does it depend on the type of gun? Is any type of regulation or increased tax radical by definition?

I hear the term radical a lot and I'm not sure I understand what it means in the context of gun laws.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

good question


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Can we define what "radical" means


First of all I think they are either radical or stupid when they make gun laws based on what the gun looks like. They don't like black guns, guns with pistol grips, guns with thumb hole stocks, some even don't like guns with scopes because they say they are meant to kill people.

It takes just a new definition sent to BATF to ban any gun they want. The AR15 looks like the M16, but it shoots just like your Browning, Ruger, or any other semi auto. Some can have high capacity clips and they think that makes them an assault weapon. Do you have a 25 round clip for your Ruger 10/22? If you do they think your a radical militant.

I'm not responding to things I find on the internet. I am responding to emails from NRA, Gun Owners, etc. I have looked up their information on bills that Obama has introduced and supported while in Illinios. I have read some of his positions on firearms. He is way far left of anyone else. Is that radical. If you go way far right I am sure many on here would call that radical. How far left on the political scale must you go to be radical? I think when your a socialist living in a capitalist nation your radical. I think when you want to take away firearms that pose no exceptional danger your radical.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> I understand that, but I just don't feel he'd be able to completely amend the gun rights that fast


.

It's already been done. A few years ago some guns were banned just based on how they looked. A lot of hunters looked at those guns and said they don't look like my single shot shotgun so I don't care.

This time around, the gun banning folks learned their lesson and will describe the features and ban accordingly. So there goes your 10/22 Rugers, etc. Then some hunters are going to say they don't look like my single shot shotgun so I don't care.

A little today and a little tomorrow and then the next day, etc and pretty soon you will only have a single shot shotgun. But then again if you only had a single shot shotgun in the first place . . . . .


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

A little paranoia today.... a little more tomorrow.... pretty soon some of you will be locked up in the insane asylum pulling your hair out with your toes. Meanwhile the rest of the sportsmen will be buying your guns that were sold because you are in the nuthouse. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> A little paranoia today.... a little more tomorrow.... pretty soon some of you will be locked up in the insane asylum pulling your hair out with your toes. Meanwhile the rest of the sportsmen will be buying your guns that were sold because you are in the nuthouse.


You can make fun of it as much as you wish but those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it but then again, if you only have a single shot shotgun, what do you care.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

willythekid said:


> A little paranoia today.... a little more tomorrow.... pretty soon some of you will be locked up in the insane asylum pulling your hair out with your toes. Meanwhile the rest of the sportsmen will be buying your guns that were sold because you are in the nuthouse. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well are we paranoid or is it your blind to what's happening? "Show me someone who keeps smiling and I'll show you someone who doesn't have a clue what's going on".


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Willy, I'm sure many in California were called paranoid when they warned of legislators who would ban their AR varmint rifles.

Were they paranoid?

IL has a bill already through committee that will outlaw ALL semi-autos of .50 or larger, with no exceptions for shotguns, waiting to be brought to the floor for a vote....when the time is right. The IL State Rifle Association has what amounts to "guards" watching for it to be called up so they can try to muster enough support to defeat it, but the gov WILL sign it if he gets it.

Do you understand what that means? ALL 1100's, super black eagles, and all the rest, except for .410's, will be illegal.

Did you catch the ALL OF THEM part?

IL has been watching California very closely, and they've learned well. You seem like a pretty smart kid, so I'm wondering if you think any other states have been watching too?

Dog is spot-on accurate. As much as we like to think of the anti's as radical idiots, unfortunately, rarely are both true. They are smart enough to pull it off.....eventually, and people like you have just enough false confidence in them to allow it to happen.

Seabass and verg want to discuss radical gun views. I'll start a new thread for it.


----------

