• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Can a US President outlaw a state issued gun carry permit?

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Just curious, but I know many of us on these forums have a gun or two in their home, and I know some of us even have 'carry permits' to carry a concealed firearm. I'm probably not the only one who has a "Lifetime" permit to carry a concealed handgun.

But I'm now wondering, if Barack Obama were to become president, can he issue some sort of order, or can he back a federal law, that would outlaw concealed carry of handguns? He has previously stated he would favor banning the sale of handguns.

Just some of his positions:

While Running For President, Obama Claims To Support Gun Rights:
This is from his website:
PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate
in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily
involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment
creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will
protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the
purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and
commonsense regulation.​

During Debate, Obama Claimed Respect For Gun Rights. Obama: "You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country. And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot." (Sen. Barack Obama, 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate,Las Vegas, NV, 1/15/08)

BUT OBAMA HAS A LONG ANTI-GUN RECORD

Before Running For President, Obama Expressed Support For Banning Many Types Of Firearms:

On 1996 Questionnaire, Obama Answered "Yes" To Question About His Support For Legislation To "Ban The Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? [Obama's Response:] Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/10/96)

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott: "In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded that 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'" (John R. Lott Jr., "Obama And Guns: Two Different Views," Fox News, www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In 2003, Obama Voted In Support Of Legislation That "Would Have Banned Most Of The Privately Held Hunting Shotguns, Target Rifles, And Black Powder Rifles" In Illinois. "n 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward L aw-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

-- SB 1195 Caused Furor; Would Have Banned Shotguns, Muzzleloaders.
"The gun furor basically revolves around Senate Bill 1195,
sponsored by Democratic Sen. Antonio Munoz. It would ban shotguns with a
bore of .50 caliber or more, the net result, according to numerous
interpretations, being to outlaw a variety of shotguns, and even
muzzleloaders." (Lew Freedman, Op-Ed, "Hunters Need Not
Worry--Yet," Chicago Tribune, 4/19/03)
Obama Believes The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'" (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)
-- NOTE: The D.C. Gun Ban Bars Handguns, Operable Rifles And Shotguns In
The Home. "The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City,
doesn't explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents
register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns
in 1976, no one who hadn't registered by then can have a handgun at
home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.'s law also bars
residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun,
loaded or assembled." (Emma Schwartz, "The Right To Bear
Arms," U.S. News & World Report, 3/6/08)​

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. "Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute -- an extremis t group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Legislation "Drafted To Protect Homeowners From Prosecution In Cases Where They Used A Firearm To Halt A Home Invasion." "[O]bama cast a total of 4 votes in opposition to SB2165. SB2165 was drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion. Once again, Obama found himself on the wrong side of the issue as overwhelming majorities of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this important legislation. Obama's steadfast opposition to SB2165 is indicative of his misplaced priorities on issues of self-defense and personal firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

-- The Bill Was In Response To Homeowner Who Shot Burglar Who Had Broken
Into His Home - Twice. "The state handgun bill Obama voted against
was a response to the case of a suburban Chicago restaurant owner who
shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice." (Mike Robinson,
"Keyes Rips Obama Over Opposition To Gun Bill," The Associated
Press State & Local Wire, 8/24/04)​

In 2004, Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-empt State Concealed Carry Laws. "In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." (Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

-- Obama Recently Spoke Out Against Concealed Carry. Obama: "I am not
in favor of concealed weapons ... I think that creates a potential
atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during)
altercations." (Mike Wereschagin and David M. Brown,
"Candidates' Gun Control Positions May Figure In Pa.
Vote," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08)​
In 2001, Obama Voted Against And Helped Defeat Bill To Allow Individuals To Carry Concealed Weapon When They Have Valid Order Of Protection Against Another Person. (S.B. 604, Senate Floor Third Reading, Failed, 29-27-0, 4/4/01, Obama Voted Nay)

-- "After Extensive Debate On The Senate Floor ... State Sen. Barack
Obama (D-13) Helped Defeat A Bill That Would Allow People Who Receive An
Order Of Protection To Possess And Carry A Concealed Firearm."
(Todd Spivak, "Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm
Bill," Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)
-- Obama: "Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of
handgun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere
... It was a bad idea and I'm glad it failed..." (Todd Spivak,
"Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill," Hyde Park
Herald, 4/11/01)​

In The U.S. Senate, Obama Voted Twice To Hold Manufacturers, Distributors, Dealers And Importers Of Firearms And Ammunition Liable For The Acts Of Criminals. (S. 397, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 53-1; D 13-30; I 0-1, 7/26/05, Obama Voted Nay; S. 397, CQ Vote #219: Passed 65-31: R 50-2; D 14-29; I 1-0, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Has Received "F" Ratings From The National Rifle Association:

In 2004, 2002 And 1998, Obama Received "F" Ratings From The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. The NRA has given Obama 3 "F's." (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; 1998 Illinois National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Political Preference Chart, p.2)​
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Would the present president (Bush) overrule a State regulation? Sure. Our state EPA is battling to enact smog rules stricter than federal EPA. We have been told we can't, federal law prevails.

Would Obama take away your guns? I really doubt it. The Democrats have learned that's a futile plank and it's no longer part of the platform. It costs too many votes.

What you may see is some new attempt to reduce the kids killing each other. That, not the overall ban you fear, is an issue where many of us hope that trend can be turned around. But it's not the same issue as 'rounding up everyone's guns'.

Is there any way to get NRA focused on slowing down the juvenile deaths? It seems to me that making some progress on that would take the pressure off the larger group of gun owners. Right now there are many people who don't distinguish between kids with guns, and the owners that those kids stole their guns from.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I didn't ask if a President can overrule state regulations that are not protected by the US Constitution. That has obviously happened many times by many presidents.

Nor did I ask if Obama "would" do this based on your view of the Democrat's problems/issues.

What I asked was CAN he do it?
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Is there any way to get NRA focused on slowing down the juvenile deaths? It seems to me that making some progress on that would take the pressure off the larger group of gun owners. Right now there are many people who don't distinguish between kids with guns, and the owners that those kids stole their guns from.
You might want to look into that because the NRA has backed all sorts of gun safety, gun education, and anti-violence programs for at least as long as I have been a member.
 

urednecku

Active member
Site Supporter
You might want to look into that because the NRA has backed all sorts of gun safety, gun education, and anti-violence programs for at least as long as I have been a member.


A good example is their/our "EDDIE EAGLE" program. It has reached over one million kids with their 'STOP, DON'T TOUCH, LEAVE THE AREA AND TELL AN ADULT' message. It does NOT endorse ownership in any way, just tells kid what to do if they find a gun. I know it works, it has with my own son.


I didn't ask if a President can overrule state regulations that are not protected by the US Constitution. That has obviously happened many times by many presidents.

Nor did I ask if Obama "would" do this based on your view of the Democrat's problems/issues.

What I asked was CAN he do it?

I don't know if he can do it himself, but he CAN appoint the people that make the laws , then back them. I am scared he will cause irreversable damage to our American way of life, in more areas than just "gun control."
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Is there any way to get NRA focused on slowing down the juvenile deaths? It seems to me that making some progress on that would take the pressure off the larger group of gun owners. Right now there are many people who don't distinguish between kids with guns, and the owners that those kids stole their guns from.

Is there anyway to ban swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools each year than by firearm accidents? :glare:
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
Is there anyway to ban swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools each year than by firearm accidents? :glare:

I'd be willing to bet that more children die from falling out of trees than by guns.
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
I'd be willing to bet that more children die from falling out of trees than by guns.

Yup....falls top firearms.


1
Unintentional Injury 1176 38.97%
* Mohor Vehicle Traffic 621 20.58%
* Drowning 159 5.27%
* Fire/burn 153 5.07%
* Suffocation 40 1.33%
* Other Land Transport 33 1.09%
* Pedestrian, Other 27 0.89%
* Struck by or Against 20 0.66%
* Unspecified 20 0.66%
* Fall 18 0.60%
* Other Spec., classifiable 17 0.56%
* Poisoning 15 0.50%
* Firearm 14 0.46%
* Other Transport 12 0.40%
* Other Spec., NEC 8 0.27%
* Natural/ Environment 7 0.23%
* Machinery 6 0.20%
* Pedal cyclist, Other 4 0.13%
* Cut/pierce 2 0.07%
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
1 Unintentional Injury 1176 38.97%
But Dave, that's the wrong chart. The specific problem, that I think puts all gun ownership at some risk of political flak, is the little bastards intentionally and with premeditation killing each other or random strangers. Its the mayhem that gets people riled up.

This is different than all the unintentional self-inflicted falls, drownings etc unless you have some numbers for intentional drownings. None of these other causes are much of a menace to others. To put it in your metaphors, you might stop some shootings by shooting first but you aren't going to stop any falls by shoving first, etc.

Different problem. The people agitating to disarm the kids are worried about getting shot themselves. Let's focus on that.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
But Dave, that's the wrong chart. The specific problem, that I think puts all gun ownership at some risk of political flak, is the little bastards intentionally and with premeditation killing each other or random strangers. Its the mayhem that gets people riled up.

This is different than all the unintentional self-inflicted falls, drownings etc unless you have some numbers for intentional drownings. None of these other causes are much of a menace to others. To put it in your metaphors, you might stop some shootings by shooting first but you aren't going to stop any falls by shoving first, etc.

Different problem. The people agitating to disarm the kids are worried about getting shot themselves. Let's focus on that.

You are the one that is mixing the issues. You are using the term "kids" to represent the inner-city gang problem. When you use the term "kids" it invokes the thought of small innocent children.

If you look at you original statement:

California said:
Is there any way to get NRA focused on slowing down the juvenile deaths? It seems to me that making some progress on that would take the pressure off the larger group of gun owners. Right now there are many people who don't distinguish between kids with guns, and the owners that those kids stole their guns from.

You are not differentiating the issue. How is the NRA supposed to do anything about inner-city gangs? The NRA only represents lawful gun owners. The NRA does advocate strong penalties for gun crimes and the enforcement of most of the existing laws.

I doubt Eddy the Eagle is going to get very far in Compton or the inner city of Baltimore.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
I think most of the pressure you guys perceive as wanting to disarm the whole country, comes from people afraid of the violence these kids can create.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that every month the NRA repeats that somebody out there is trying to take away gun ownership. I think you need to look past the stereotype 'them liberals' and see what is causing people to ask their representatives to Do Something.

When I say kids I don't mean innocent. The image in my mind is a nominally-Black kid I saw in ER one time I took my elderly mother in on a Friday night. The kid was on a gurney and was an unbelievable shade of gray. He was dead. I guess his age at about 7th grade, his size and weight were about half compared to an adult. I don't think he was an innocent victim of someone's carelessness, I think he intentionally put himself in a high risk situation of some kind, since the two policemen rolling the gurney kept looking around as if they might get shot before they got in the doors. This wasn't the ghetto, it was a very expensive private hospital whose ER was probably in rotation that evening to take whatever came in the door.

Another example in mind was when the first Vietnamese deputy sheriff here was gunned down by a jr hi truant, also Vietnamese. That kid was described by his peers as a wannabe gangster, too young to join a gang, but itching to make a name for himself so the older kids could see he was tough too.

And finally, within a block of my home in a nice neighborhood a neighbor was gunned down by a 12 year old who again, wanted to show the big kids he was tough too. In this case the kid said he chose a white victim just for the publicity. (My neighbor recovered).

These are all cases that result in pressure on officials to Do Something. And clearly Eddy Eagle isn't going to impress these little guys.

I think NRA or anyone concerned about confiscation of weapons has to look beyond the vague 'them liberals' and determine where the pressure is coming from, then, if possible, try to do something about it. Otherwise its just grandstanding.

Partly I'm thinking here about the thread Bob started,
Gun Violence is a race/demographic problem that seems to have been abandoned (or got off track? Comunism???) before any solutions were proposed. Apparently 'will Obama take away our Permits' is a hotter topic but I think the trail of reasoning leads right back to that first topic - we need to know why there is pressure on officials to Do Something.
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
I think most of the pressure you guys perceive as wanting to disarm the whole country, comes from people afraid of the violence these kids can create.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that every month the NRA repeats that somebody out there is trying to take away gun ownership. I think you need to look past the stereotype 'them liberals' and see what is causing people to ask their representatives to Do Something.

When I say kids I don't mean innocent. The image in my mind is a nominally-Black kid I saw in ER one time I took my elderly mother in on a Friday night. The kid was on a gurney and was an unbelievable shade of gray. He was dead. I guess his age at about 7th grade, his size and weight were about half compared to an adult. I don't think he was an innocent victim of someone's carelessness, I think he intentionally put himself in a high risk situation of some kind, since the two policemen rolling the gurney kept looking around as if they might get shot before they got in the doors. This wasn't the ghetto, it was a very expensive private hospital whose ER was probably in rotation that evening to take whatever came in the door.

Another example in mind was when the first Vietnamese deputy sheriff here was gunned down by a jr hi truant, also Vietnamese. That kid was described by his peers as a wannabe gangster, too young to join a gang, but itching to make a name for himself so the older kids could see he was tough too.

And finally, within a block of my home in a nice neighborhood a neighbor was gunned down by a 12 year old who again, wanted to show the big kids he was tough too. In this case the kid said he chose a white victim just for the publicity. (My neighbor recovered).

These are all cases that result in pressure on officials to Do Something. And clearly Eddy Eagle isn't going to impress these little guys.

I think NRA or anyone concerned about confiscation of weapons has to look beyond the vague 'them liberals' and determine where the pressure is coming from, then, if possible, try to do something about it. Otherwise its just grandstanding.

Partly I'm thinking here about the thread Bob started,
Gun Violence is a race/demographic problem that seems to have been abandoned (or got off track? Comunism???) before any solutions were proposed. Apparently 'will Obama take away our Permits' is a hotter topic but I think the trail of reasoning leads right back to that first topic - we need to know why there is pressure on officials to Do Something.

All three of the scenarios you presented are not even slightly fixable by banning guns.

Could you please define what "Do Something" means? Every single responsible, educated gun owner I have ever know "Does Something". I grew up in a household where guns were owned and displayed in an unlocked glass front cabinet in the livingroom. My grandparents and uncles houses were the same way. I was educated enough by my family that if I even looked at a gun cross-eyed without supervision, I'd get the shit kicked out of me. I never really knew what would have happened if I had ever actually touched a gun without permission, and I don't think I want to know.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
All three of the scenarios you presented are not even slightly fixable by banning guns.

Could you please define what "Do Something" means? Every single responsible, educated gun owner I have ever know "Does Something". I grew up in a household where guns were owned and displayed in an unlocked glass front cabinet in the livingroom. My grandparents and uncles houses were the same way. I was educated enough by my family that if I even looked at a gun cross-eyed without supervision, I'd get the shit kicked out of me. I never really knew what would have happened if I had ever actually touched a gun without permission, and I don't think I want to know.

I couldn't agree more.

California, "guns" aren't the problem. The problem you are defining is a cultural issue that has more to do with social issues like fatherless homes, drugs, lack of respect (and fear) of law enforcement, and the whole gangster culture.

Banning guns does not reduce the violence that comes from these social and cultural issues. The same kind of gun violence happens in the inner-city of Toronto, Canada and London, England.

This issue has nothing to do with the NRA and everything to do with our society. But the Democratic party will forever vindicate the NRA because in it's support of the second amendment the NRA tends to support more Republican candidates then Democrat. Subsequently, the Democrats like to make the NRA out to be an evil organization. I suspect if the NRA were "supporting" more Democrats then it would suddenly become a "good" organization. It's your basic politics.
 

urednecku

Active member
Site Supporter
(1) I think most of the pressure you guys perceive as wanting to disarm the whole country, comes from people afraid of the violence these kids can create.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that every month the NRA repeats that somebody out there is trying to take away gun ownership. I think you need to look past the stereotype 'them liberals' and see what is causing people to ask their representatives to Do Something.

When I say kids I don't mean innocent. The image in my mind is a nominally-Black kid I saw in ER one time I took my elderly mother in on a Friday night. The kid was on a gurney and was an unbelievable shade of gray. He was dead. I guess his age at about 7th grade, his size and weight were about half compared to an adult. I don't think he was an innocent victim of someone's carelessness, I think he intentionally put himself in a high risk situation of some kind, since the two policemen rolling the gurney kept looking around as if they might get shot before they got in the doors. This wasn't the ghetto, it was a very expensive private hospital whose ER was probably in rotation that evening to take whatever came in the door.

Another example in mind was when the first Vietnamese deputy sheriff here was gunned down by a jr hi truant, also Vietnamese. That kid was described by his peers as a wannabe gangster, too young to join a gang, but itching to make a name for himself so the older kids could see he was tough too.

And finally, within a block of my home in a nice neighborhood a neighbor was gunned down by a 12 year old who again, wanted to show the big kids he was tough too. In this case the kid said he chose a white victim just for the publicity. (My neighbor recovered).

2) These are all cases that result in pressure on officials to Do Something. And clearly Eddy Eagle isn't going to impress these little guys.

3) I think NRA or anyone concerned about confiscation of weapons has to look beyond the vague 'them liberals' and determine where the pressure is coming from, then, if possible, try to do something about it. Otherwise its just grandstanding.

Partly I'm thinking here about the thread Bob started,
Gun Violence is a race/demographic problem that seems to have been abandoned (or got off track? Comunism???) before any solutions were proposed. Apparently 'will Obama take away our Permits' is a hotter topic but I think the trail of reasoning leads right back to that first topic - we need to know why there is pressure on officials to Do Something.


1) Yes, a lot of people want to dis-arm the country, forgetting the "kids" causing the problem will NOT pay any attention to the laws. It will only make 'subjects' out of 'citizens'. It is already illegal for most of them to be in possession of a firearm. More gun laws will only make that bunch bolder, and turn them loose on the 'subjects'.

2) No, Eddie is not going to impress these little people, who do not have a home life. The program is directed to any child that goes to school, or has some-one trying to make a better place for them. A 'kid' that has come from 2 drugged up idiots, and is left to run the streets & survive the best he can will probably never hear about Eddie. All he knows to get food, money or whatever else he wants or needs is to take it.

3)'them liberals', 'democrats', 'republicans', 'conservatives'......there are "gun haters" in all corners, just like there are people that enjoy shooting.
The pressure is coming from something NEEDING to be done


Lets relate this issue with cars and bicycles. There are more deaths each week caused by drunk drivers than there are in a year caused by guns. Why not out-law cars?
There are more deaths of bicycle riders than by guns. Lets make bicycle's illegal.

What most people that can do something are trying to do is "ban bicycles, instead of educate the riders."

I took the liberty to go back to the site davenay got his list from, and copied the "top 10". I can not find guns or firearms in the list.


Top 10 Causes of Death - US


  1. Diseases of Heart 28.5%
  2. Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
  3. Cerebrovascular Diseases (stroke) 6.7%
  4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 5.1%
  5. Accidents 4.4%
    • Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (41% of all accidents)
    • Poisoning (16% of all accidents)
    • Fall (15% of all accidents)
  6. Diabetes Mellitus 3.0%
  7. Influenza and Pneumonia 2.7%
  8. Alzheimer's Disease 2.4%
  9. Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis (kidney diseases) 1.7%
  10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
All Others 21.4%




http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_in_US.html
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
Just curious, but I know many of us on these forums have a gun or two in their home, and I know some of us even have 'carry permits' to carry a concealed firearm. I'm probably not the only one who has a "Lifetime" permit to carry a concealed handgun.

But I'm now wondering, if Barack Obama were to become president, can he issue some sort of order, or can he back a federal law, that would outlaw concealed carry of handguns? He has previously stated he would favor banning the sale of handguns.

Just some of his positions:
While Running For President, Obama Claims To Support Gun Rights:
This is from his website:
PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate
in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily
involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment
creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will
protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the
purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and
commonsense regulation.
During Debate, Obama Claimed Respect For Gun Rights. Obama: "You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country. And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot." (Sen. Barack Obama, 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate,Las Vegas, NV, 1/15/08)

BUT OBAMA HAS A LONG ANTI-GUN RECORD

Before Running For President, Obama Expressed Support For Banning Many Types Of Firearms:

On 1996 Questionnaire, Obama Answered "Yes" To Question About His Support For Legislation To "Ban The Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? [Obama's Response:] Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/10/96)

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott: "In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded that 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'" (John R. Lott Jr., "Obama And Guns: Two Different Views," Fox News, www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In 2003, Obama Voted In Support Of Legislation That "Would Have Banned Most Of The Privately Held Hunting Shotguns, Target Rifles, And Black Powder Rifles" In Illinois. "n 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward L aw-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)
-- SB 1195 Caused Furor; Would Have Banned Shotguns, Muzzleloaders.
"The gun furor basically revolves around Senate Bill 1195,
sponsored by Democratic Sen. Antonio Munoz. It would ban shotguns with a
bore of .50 caliber or more, the net result, according to numerous
interpretations, being to outlaw a variety of shotguns, and even
muzzleloaders." (Lew Freedman, Op-Ed, "Hunters Need Not
Worry--Yet," Chicago Tribune, 4/19/03)
Obama Believes The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'" (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)
-- NOTE: The D.C. Gun Ban Bars Handguns, Operable Rifles And Shotguns In
The Home. "The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City,
doesn't explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents
register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns
in 1976, no one who hadn't registered by then can have a handgun at
home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.'s law also bars
residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun,
loaded or assembled." (Emma Schwartz, "The Right To Bear
Arms," U.S. News & World Report, 3/6/08)
Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. "Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute -- an extremis t group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Legislation "Drafted To Protect Homeowners From Prosecution In Cases Where They Used A Firearm To Halt A Home Invasion." "[O]bama cast a total of 4 votes in opposition to SB2165. SB2165 was drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion. Once again, Obama found himself on the wrong side of the issue as overwhelming majorities of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this important legislation. Obama's steadfast opposition to SB2165 is indicative of his misplaced priorities on issues of self-defense and personal firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)
-- The Bill Was In Response To Homeowner Who Shot Burglar Who Had Broken
Into His Home - Twice. "The state handgun bill Obama voted against
was a response to the case of a suburban Chicago restaurant owner who
shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice." (Mike Robinson,
"Keyes Rips Obama Over Opposition To Gun Bill," The Associated
Press State & Local Wire, 8/24/04)
In 2004, Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-empt State Concealed Carry Laws. "In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." (Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)
-- Obama Recently Spoke Out Against Concealed Carry. Obama: "I am not
in favor of concealed weapons ... I think that creates a potential
atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during)
altercations." (Mike Wereschagin and David M. Brown,
"Candidates' Gun Control Positions May Figure In Pa.
Vote," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08)
In 2001, Obama Voted Against And Helped Defeat Bill To Allow Individuals To Carry Concealed Weapon When They Have Valid Order Of Protection Against Another Person. (S.B. 604, Senate Floor Third Reading, Failed, 29-27-0, 4/4/01, Obama Voted Nay)
-- "After Extensive Debate On The Senate Floor ... State Sen. Barack
Obama (D-13) Helped Defeat A Bill That Would Allow People Who Receive An
Order Of Protection To Possess And Carry A Concealed Firearm."
(Todd Spivak, "Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm
Bill," Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)
-- Obama: "Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of
handgun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere
... It was a bad idea and I'm glad it failed..." (Todd Spivak,
"Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill," Hyde Park
Herald, 4/11/01)
In The U.S. Senate, Obama Voted Twice To Hold Manufacturers, Distributors, Dealers And Importers Of Firearms And Ammunition Liable For The Acts Of Criminals. (S. 397, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 53-1; D 13-30; I 0-1, 7/26/05, Obama Voted Nay; S. 397, CQ Vote #219: Passed 65-31: R 50-2; D 14-29; I 1-0, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Has Received "F" Ratings From The National Rifle Association:
In 2004, 2002 And 1998, Obama Received "F" Ratings From The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. The NRA has given Obama 3 "F's." (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; 1998 Illinois National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Political Preference Chart, p.2)



bob, if this muslim wins, your guns will be gone and that will be a minor thing that you loose, many of the freedoms we now have will be gone as well.
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
I have been searching for this for some time. Thought it would be good to toss in here. This is from the father of Rachel Scott who's life was taken from her in Columbine.



A Father Speaks for Reason in an Unreasonable World

On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's sub-committee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.
The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers."
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent."
"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.
"I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:"
Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air. You've stripped away our heritage, You've outlawed simple prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die. You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question "Why?" You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed. And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation?
We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws."
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored. We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School, prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
[FONT=&quot]Be courageous enough to do what the media did not ---- let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can!!![/FONT]
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
A good example is their/our "EDDIE EAGLE" program. It has reached over one million kids with their 'STOP, DON'T TOUCH, LEAVE THE AREA AND TELL AN ADULT' message. It does NOT endorse ownership in any way, just tells kid what to do if they find a gun. I know it works, it has with my own son.

Not to mention The Friends of NRA! They are a major contributor to education and awareness.
 
Top