Strong Majority of Voters Disagree with Barack Obama on Second Amendment

[jwinch2]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-02-2008/0004877182&EDATE=


ATI-News/Zogby Poll Shows Democrats, Republicans and Independents Oppose Obama Positions

WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- A strong majority of likely voters
disagree with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on firearms
and self-defense related issues, according to a just-released
ATI-News/Zogby poll. Brad O'Leary, president of ATI-News.com and author of
the explosive new book, The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on
American Values, notes that opposition to Obama's stance on these issues is
widespread across multiple demographics.

Ban on Hunting Ammunition

In 2005, Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of legislation sponsored
by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that would have banned nearly all rifle
ammunition used for hunting and sport shooting. This position puts Obama
squarely at odds with over 75 percent of likely voters.

ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: "Do you support or oppose
legislation to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting
and sport shooting?"

Seventy-seven percent of likely voters said they oppose legislation to
ban such commonly used ammunition, while only nine percent said they would
support such a ban. A strong majority of Democrats (58 percent),
Republicans (92 percent) and Independents (84 percent) all oppose the
ammunition ban that Obama supported -- as do 79 percent of military
families. (This nationwide poll of 3,825 likely voters was conducted August
27-29 and has a margin of error +/- 1.6 percentage points.)

"This is just another example of how Obama's extreme position on basic
Second Amendment freedoms runs counter to the beliefs of most Americans,"
said O'Leary.

Self-Defense

As an Illinois State Senator in 2004, Barack Obama voted against
legislation that protects citizens, who use firearms in self-defense in
their home or business in spite of local gun bans, from prosecution. Here
again, the Obama position is counter to that of most Americans.

ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: "Do you agree or disagree that you
have the right to use deadly force as a means of self-defense in your home,
without having to retreat?"

Eighty-eight percent of likely voters agree that they should have this
basic right to self-defense, while only eight percent disagreed. An
overwhelming majority of Democrats (83 percent), Republicans (90 percent)
and Independents (91 percent) all agree. (This nationwide poll of 974
likely voters was conducted August 15-18 and has a margin of error +/- 3.2
percentage points.)

Most state legislatures have already taken steps to strengthen this
right. Thirty-three states now have "Castle Doctrine" laws that remove a
person's "duty to retreat" from any place he or she has a legal right to
be. Of these states, twenty-two also prohibit criminals and their families
from suing people who injure criminals in self-defense. Many of these laws
have been enacted only in recent years, and more state legislatures are
expected to follow suit in 2009 and beyond.

"Why would Obama vote to make it more difficult for citizens to protect
their homes, businesses and families from life-threatening criminal
attacks?" asked O'Leary. "Americans need to question whether or not they
agree with the 'change' Obama could bring to their basic rights and
freedoms."


I think this could be a big problem for Senator Obama this fall. It is something I just have hard time getting my head around. There are virtually no data supporting the idea that restricting firearms or ammunition lowers violent crime. In fact, the overwhelming majority of data says the exact opposite. In addition, how could someone disagree with the idea of a person in their own home protecting themselves and their loved ones?

It simply escapes me. I consider myself a moderate and am liberal on some issues such as the environment, energy policy, and education for the most part. However, this one is a deal breaker for me. I cannot conceive of voting for someone who cannot recognize my basic right to protect my wife, myself, other innocents, and my home. Period.

[David Craik]

I cannot conceive of voting for someone who cannot recognize my basic right to protect myself, my wife, and home. Period.


Nor can I. Protecting oneself and family is the most basic, easy-to-understand right there is, and as far as I'm concerned is inalienable regardless of legislation.

[Dennis Monk]

/\
I agree with both the above posts 100%
http://www.nrailasigns.org/images/nra_vote2.jpg

[Jay Bell]

Hrm...there's a problem though here. Before I start, I'm not a die-hard Obama fan..but there's some misunderstandings as far as the 2nd Amendment that need to be addressed. In it's original state, the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms against an oppressive government -or- a threat that could alter the ways of a free state. Meaning...that the state militia has the right to take up arms against a government set on bending it's way, or something attempting to bend it's will onto oppressed people. That's a *lot* different then what most people's opinions believes it to be. Keep in mind...the Constitution was written vaguely...and specifically all at once...because the authors were much more insightful then any of us will ever be.

“ A well 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."

Now...all Obama would have to do is have a look at Australia. They banned guns, violent crime didn't change hardly at all. It wasn't that long ago...and it wouldn't take long to find the data.

There's a point that a lot of people miss when this topic comes up. The Judicial branch of the govt interprets the laws. They define the written word that we are to hold to our actions. *Opinions* of what that written word means has no bearing at all. The meanings have been laid out for us by the Judicial branch. Sometimes that changes with the times (by court case that goes before the Supreme Court), other times it stays very archaic.

Inalienable is another tricky one. We live in the greatest country in the world, imo. Reason...that very word. It means that regardless of circumstance, the government does not have the authority to remove our basic human rights. No other country has this...even in the UK & Canada. But, to understand the 2nd amendment takes some reading and some footwork to understand what the *latest definition by the Judicial branch* to know if it fits into that mold.

Way too much I talk with friends who define our laws to what their opinions and beliefs hold. Honestly...it makes no difference at all. What we *feel* our laws mean is futile. Their interpretation has no bearing on what it honestly means...or to the groups of people it protects.

k...bedtime...this is what happens when I come home to brandy and beer.

PS - *If* that's what Obama's feelings are, he's a fool for having them.

[Cliff Hargrave]

Jay, you are correct about the judicial branch being the final say on any law. Which is all the more reason to not elect Obama, in case he gets a shot at appointing judges.

[Jay Bell]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417122,00.html
:D

[Webmaster]

Good for them. :clapping:

[Jeff C.]

It is very easy to miss a HUGE point here: what he voted against does not necessarily have ANYTHING TO DO with firearms. Read it again:

'ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: "Do you agree or disagree that you
have the right to use deadly force as a means of self-defense in your home,
without having to retreat?" '

That goes for knives, clubs, archery equipment, a chair weilded in a "deadly" manner, your hands and feet being used with "deadly force," etc.

From Jay's post:

"There's a point that a lot of people miss when this topic comes up. The Judicial branch of the govt interprets the laws. They define the written word that we are to hold to our actions. *Opinions* of what that written word means has no bearing at all. The meanings have been laid out for us by the Judicial branch. Sometimes that changes with the times (by court case that goes before the Supreme Court), other times it stays very archaic."

Absolutely, totally incorrect (what I bold-faced). The legislative branch laid out the amendments and intent of the amendments. The Judicial Branch interprets the meaning by rendering opinions. As Cliff correctly implies above, it is TOTALLY opinion-driven - and the opinions are based upon liberal or conservative presidential appointments to the bench. Therein lies the danger.

I will leave arguing with you about your interpretation of that amendment for another day, Jay. :D

Jeff Cook