Sunday, September 7, 2008

Of Obama's Lies (from comments)

Vanilla Chunk left this in comments on Oh, Barack! You're Prettiest When You're Quiet.
Oh, God.
Dude: he knows what people will say: Dem = gun taker. You keep spreading the same old rhetoric, so much that when a guy says point-blank (shooting pun!)“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’ you try to rewrite it in your head. "He said A; it must, MUST mean B."
That old crap again, and you're gonna go vote on this one issue and then we get 4 more years of Dubya.
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’. Pretty simple. If he lies, no one will ever vote Dem again. Republicans lie all the time- 'no new taxes', 'mission accomplished'- and NO ONE ever hears a peep from you guys about that.
We can debate which person with what documents should be allowed to buy which gun after which waiting period. But when he says, “If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’ and you assume he means the opposite, that's kind of...are there types of people you believe more readily than others? Take 'liberal' and Dem and progressive off the table, think about it again.
Well, fair enough. Let's consider that point by point, shall we? Remember, don't take this personally; I argue with all my friends. If I didn't like you, I'd be ignoring you right now.

So Obama knows that people will say "Dem=gun taker." Why would people say that? Your implication seems to be that it's not true, but on the national level, it generally is. Who wrote the assault weapons ban? Who called for registration? Who sent the BATF out to shut down as many dealers as possible? Who tried to end "kitchen table" FFL's who sold out of their homes? Who's in charge in the most anti-gun urban centers in the country? Who sponsors bills to register all guns? To ban handguns? Who sponsors bills to ban rifles with "shoulder things that go up?"
Those would be Democrats. I'm not a Democrat-vs.-Republican guy; my state rep and senator are Democrats. One's as fanatical as a professional politician can get in favor of gun rights; the other is pragmatic enough to go along with her downstate constituents.

But Barry has a bigger problem. He's not called a gun-grabber simply because he's a Democrat. He's called a gun-grabber because he has always, consistently, favored restrictions on gun rights.
  • He favored a complete ban on all handguns. If he had his way, you wouldn't own any of the guns you proudly listed in your post.
  • He likes Chicago's "registration" scheme, in which it is illegal to own an unregistered handgun and simultaneously impossible to register a handgun. He loves people like Daley, Meeks, and Blagojevich (at least when his poll numbers were higher.)
  • He wanted to shut down every gun shop within a five-mile radius of a school or park. You can take a map of just about any city, draw a few circles and realize what that means. If he didn't know, then either he was an idiot or he was paying zero attention to the laws he was writing--laws that would have put good people out of business and denied a fundamental human right. If he did know, then that's pretty underhanded.
As for rewriting what he said in my head, you make some pretty farfetched assumptions there. He did NOT say the opposite. He said precisely what I read--he would like to take away all the guns, but he doesn't have the votes to do it, so we should elect him anyway. He's said he'd like to take away guns many times in the past. What changed? Other than the fact that those older quotes don't play well in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida? Was he lying then or is he lying now?

Republicans lie "and NO ONE ever hears a peep from you guys about that."? Really? Who is "you guys?"
Have you ever heard of Mark Kirk? Bloomberg? Abramoff? Cunningham? I could sit here and list 'em off all night, but I think my point is clear. You can't seriously think Obama is going to get a pass on trying to squish my way of life out of existence because other politicians lie, too.

You may not realize that I've sat in the committee rooms with this guy. I've listened to him discuss specific bills on the table in Illinois, and he was either clueless or lying. At first, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and considered him ignorant but teachable--and even then, his charisma was clear. But time will tell, and it told on him. He looked us in the eye and lied to us to get anti-gun bills out to the floor without having to deal with the bad press of doing it in front of hundreds of angry gun owners. You can't trust him and you can't believe him.

I don't trust McCain either, or Palin for that matter, but if they win, they owe me instead of the Joyce Foundation.


Mulligan said...

If a politician's mouth is open they're lyin'. It's all about getting elected. The ONLY way to predict what they will do after the election is to examine their past record.

before we vote we gotta decide which 2 have shot off more than their mouth.

the pistolero said...

Who tried to end "kitchen table" FFL's who sold out of their homes?
I thought the ATF under Clinton pretty much did yank all the FFLs who dealt out of their homes. Was I mistaken?

Unknown said...

I watched Obama's speech in PA when he said that "even if I want to take your guns I can't, I wont have the votes". what an idiot. As a Pennsylvanian who comes from a long line of hunters (or just people who hunted to feed their families) I call bullshit on Obama. And there were hunters in that audience and they did not believe a word he said. People equate hunters with dumb rednecks who do not know a thing about politics, but the folks are not stupid. To those folks at that speech guns equal survival. PA is filled with hunters and famrers, and both rely on those guns. They are not giving those up without a fight. Let the BATF walk into those fields, onto those farms, into those woods and try to disarm those folks and they will get a real fight.

Don said...

Pistolero, they certainly tried, but if you know who to ask, there are still kitchen-table guys out there quietly going about their business.

NotClauswitz said...

"Stroke of the Pen, Law of the Land. Kinda cool," explained Clinton aid Paul Begala about how Clinton passed many executive orders - orders with the force of law.
Barak Icecube Obama is nothing if not COOL - "Cool" describes his every public appearance and his entire running platform.
Obama is lying when he postulates a need for congressional votes, and the Politburo that runs the Democrat Party (Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Reid, Feinstein) they get what they want.

The Raving Prophet said...

The reason we see Obama as an anti-gun politico eager to take guns from the populace is because he has never, not once, at any time or place, ever taken or spoken against any kind of a gun ban.

Remember Feinstein's comment about saying , if they had the votes, "Mister and Missus America, turn them all in?"

That's Obama's fellow Democrat leadership.

The only reason Obama might have possibly been truthful in his statement would have been because they don't try outright confiscation, just a ban on civilian ownership of new production. We saw it with the 1986 NFA registry closure, the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban," and everything else. If you had one, you could keep it. If you want one, you have to pay inflated prices for a pre-ban model (and sometimes extra taxes and registrations).

The first thing to go is preventing civilian ownership of new production. Then they'll require registration. Then they ban transfers (or just tax it and plan to ban it later). If you own it, fine, but your kids will never own it.

Outright confiscation is something that is darn near never tried- you have to get there bit by bit, and Obama is eager to start at step one.

Anonymous said...

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,", doesn't have to be a lie. If elected, he'd be too busy to do it himself. He'd have others to do it for him.

Unknown said...

It's me, Vanilla Chunk. Proud Democrat, proud teacher, proud gun-owner and NOT a troll.
'If a politician's mouth is open they're lying'...well, that pretty much limits your options.
My views on gun control:
I am not that old, but I remember a time when you could buy pretty much any kind of gun by mail anywhere in the U.S. or from those "kitchen table" FFL's who sold out of their homes. Some of them were warm, grandfatherly types. Some were snakes out for a quick buck. Others were nice guys, but they couldn't account for hundreds of missing guns they had 'lost'. Don't romanticize it.
Things got a little out of hand. Guns from that era are still falling into the hands of criminals. Straw buyers still buy guns for gang-members who use them to wreak havoc in cities like mine.
Gang-members are members of criminal cartels. There is nothing 'cute' or 'romantic' about them; this isn't West Side Story. Violent criminals who use guns should be locked up far far away. In Chicago, in L.A., wherever.
I have lived in a country where private gun ownership was impossible. When there was a coup, what do you think I was looking for? Not a handy can of pepper-spray, I assure you.
I think private gun ownership is one of the most important principles of our democracy. It's written into the Constitution, fer God's sake. NO ONE IS EVER GOING TO TAKE AWAY THE GUNS I OWN. They are registered, I obey all laws and I keep them locked-up.
There are too many gun-owners who feel the same way- it'd be out and out war.

What do I think we need? (and bear with me, ya did quote everything I wrote)
1. Gun owners who are responsible about locking their stuff up, away from criminals and kids.
2. Government that stops crushing free enterprise like gun stores and gun smiths with insane restrictions like the ones you cited (agree with you there, totally- why parks? 5 MILES? wow.)
3. Gun owners who can look themselves in the eye and ask, do I really need a weapon that converts to full auto? Yeah, they're fun, but do ya need one? Because even here in California, I get no hassles regarding the number of guns I own. Yeah, the paperwork is a pain in the butt- deal with it. I don't want some guy with a fake ID funnelling guns to the Tiny Winos gang down on 2nd Avenue.

I could go on and on. I could type about how much I admire Israel, how an armed society is a polite society, how the NRA certainly doesn't help things by infiltrating gun-control groups and then getting busted. Is there goal the removal of all restrictions on all gun sales for all people? Is that how people want things to be?
Final point: a lot of gun-owners vote republican because that issue is the most important and they feel most comfortable voting for that party. However, you've had a Republican in office for 8 years. Have any gun laws really changed that much in that time? Better or worse? I admit, I'm not even a 'let's go a quick Google search' kind of expert on the whole area. Same as my Anti-Abortion pals. I ask them, what has changed? You've had the field for 8 years- why have teen pregnancies gone up? Why so many abortions, still?
People want them. It's awful. It's tragic. People want them. People also want some controls on gun ownership. Ask Mom and Pop- do you want anybody, anywhere, to be able to buy any kind of gun they want, regardless of what they've done in the past? Think about the crazy guy down the street- do you think he needs a Desert Eagle .50? And how long will Nutty Norm your neighbor hold on to it?

I've said my piece. Don, if I may, I respectfully ask that this be left where it is, in the 'comments'. If we disagree, we disagree. In four years, let's look at the record and have a beer over the facts. I think things'll pretty much be the same. If they aren't, woe be to the offending party.


The Raving Prophet said...

Jeff, God help you if your ownership options of ANYTHING are left purely to what you can justify before a board of politicians. Be it a gun, a vehicle, a home, or whatever.

Down that road lies nothing more than living in a studio apartment eating nutritious but miserable gruel three meals a day because you don't "need" anything more and the rest was banned because it might be misused.

You might be eager to let full autos go under the bus because you don't see the point, but somebody else will end up deciding that you don't need something you DO cherish.

Anonymous said...