I got a response on a letter from the Obama campaign

J

jfrey123

New member
With all the misinformation we can receive from the internet, I decided to ask the candidate a question regarding issues that concern me: firearms policies. I asked for specific answers regarding: CCW permits, hi capacity magazines, sportsman's rights, pistol laws and rifle laws. I received the following vague and unsatisfying response...

Barack knows that Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected.

We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights.

Barack will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. Barack is also speaking out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people.



Thanks,

Ana @ Obama HQ
Click to expand...

First off, I was disappointed that [the moderator] ignored the majority of my questions in favor of this cookie cutter response. The only thing this campaign moderator actually admitted is a reinstatement of the AWB and to work toward MORE "effective" gun laws. I'm not sure what he finds to be a "reasonable" balance between sportsman's rights vs. public safety, but I'm sure it isn't a good thing for us.

However, the last line actually made me laugh. Barack seems to believe speaking out against violence will actually matter, that violent young people will hear his words and magically not be criminals anymore. I almost wish I could live in the utopia he seems to reside in, except I'd go crazy there...

My review of firearms policy, directly from one of candidate Barack Obama's campaign moderators?

:barf::barf::mad::(:barf:
 
Last edited:
S

Samurai

New member
This was an automated response. He's got the exact same statement posted up on his webpage.

Nice to know that noone even read your letter, isn't it?:barf:
 
A

armoredman

New member
Hussien stated he would sign legslation barring CCW across the country, no matter how illegal that action would be. He or Klinton would do everything in thier power to strip you and yours of your legal products.
 
A

Army GI

New member
Didn't we already have a thread about this? Yeah we get it, you get automated email responses to questions he's been asked thousands of times. BAD MAN!
 
W

WhyteP38

New member
Apparently, Obama reads the 2nd Amendment this way:

"Well regulated firearms, being necessary to hunting, the right of legitimate hunters and sportsmen to keep and bear Arms, should not be unreasonably infringed."

Of course, it's up to the government, not the governed, to define what legitimate, should, and unreasonably mean.

Why the Founding Fathers would be so concerned about hunting, and completely unconcerned about self-defense and fighting tyranny after a long war with Britain at a time when nearly every home was on the border of a wilderness, is rather puzzling. But there you have it. The Founding Fathers were simply avid hunters.
 
P

Perldog007

New member
I think everybody reads the Second wrong. A wel regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me the militia clause in the preamble refers to a government controlled force by virtue of the well regulated description. We know from the federalist papers that it was known to the framers that weekend drill for the whole populace would be impractical.

Seeing as how we needed a well regulated militia, and knowing that standing armies were a danger to liberty it makes common sense that the whole body of the people needed to be armed. This would disabuse the well regulated militia of any fantasies regarding abuse of the populace.

Just my take. YMMV.
 
T

toybox99615

New member
did you really believe anyone including any candidate

would have nothing other to do than to sit around and see if they got an email from you to read. Any now your upset becasue the candidate did not take time to read your email on the 2nd amendment issue.
 
J

jfrey123

New member
now your upset becasue the candidate did not take time to read your email
Click to expand...

When I started the thread, I posted before proof reading. I do understand that I am not getting a personal response from the ACTUAL candidate, and even my original letter I sent in was addressed to the moderator of the website.

you get automated email responses to questions he's been asked thousands of times
Click to expand...

I don't care how many times he's been asked the questions lol. If he actually wanted my vote, or a vote from someone like me, he'd instruct his multi-million dollar staff to actually study his policies and respond thoughtfully to emails from concerned citizens. ;)
 
U

Unregistered

Moderator
If he actually wanted my vote, or a vote from someone like me, he'd instruct his multi-million dollar staff to actually study his policies and respond thoughtfully to emails from concerned citizens.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that any candidate has the resources and man-power to respond individually to letters?
 
A

Army GI

New member
Do you seriously believe that any candidate has the resources and man-power to respond individually to letters?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the figured this out in the 18th century. You need to have representatives in a democracy once the population is too big to hear every single voice.
 
S

sw_florida

Moderator
I think there is a deep resentment among blacks towards guns in the hands of civilians; guns clearly destroy black neighborhoods and are the root of everything negative about black neighborhood, they say.

Well, how about partial restricions on guns then? Blacks: no guns. Everybody happy, everybody safe.
 
W

WhyteP38

New member
Guns are inanimate objects. They don't destroy neighborhoods. They are simply the tools by which a degraded culture, which is what destroys neighborhoods of all types, carries out the destruction. The "Cultural Revolution" heralded catastrophic crime rates that hit the black communities first because they were most vulnerable, and then hit the white communities.

Books, TV, movies, etc. are significantly more violent, and graphically so, and less compassionate now than when I was a kid. We've traded "Lassie," "The Flintstones," and "Mr. Science" for "Malcolm in the Middle," "Family Guy," and "Jackass." And then we wonder why our kids have so many behavioral problems that rip apart our neighborhoods.

And now huge segments of our population are willing to give up fundamental rights, such as the 2nd Amendment, without even blinking an eye.
 
A

Army GI

New member
I think there is a deep resentment among blacks towards guns in the hands of civilians; guns clearly destroy black neighborhoods and are the root of everything negative about black neighborhood, they say.

Well, how about partial restrictions on guns then? Blacks: no guns. Everybody happy, everybody safe.
Click to expand...

That's retarded.
 
J

Jim March

New member
Obama is a grabber, pure and simple. I went so far as to tell the chair of the Maricopa County Democratic Party that a good fundraiser would be to take their rolls of 3" wide Obama and Hillary stickers down to a shooting range and sell them for $5 each as targets.

But.

I think there's two kinds of grabbers. One type just gets the willies about guns in general and basically doesn't know any better. The other type knows guns have to get grabbed to pursue totalitarian aims.

Hillary is of the latter type, no question.

Obama...hmmm. Dunno.

Don't get me wrong, I won't vote for him. But...I don't think he's as stone-cold evil as Kennedy, Kerry, DiFi, Hillary, Chuckie Schumer or the like.

On MLK's b-day Obama spoke at King's old church, condemning the black community for their rising tide of anti-Semitism and homophobia. Right or wrong, regardless of what you think about gays, that took guts.

Likewise, the final sentence in that letter above also took guts. He's making a start at blaming violence in the inner-city black community on cultural issues rather than guns - and he's absolutely right. Due to the color of his skin, he's likely the ONLY candidate who can say that without getting ripped up by the Sharpton/Jackson clique.

Do I want this ignorant fool as President. Hell no. Is he better than Hillary? Hell YES. *Maybe* better than McCain, who's as big a donkey's back end as they come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top