What? Obamessiah now sells himself to rural Pennsylvania as the pro-gun candidate?
{Guest Post by See-dubya}
The gall of this man. Here’s a clip from my post from Thursday, where’s he’s talking tough on guns for urban Democrats in Philly and Pittsburgh:
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.
But then Politico looked at Obama’s strategy to woo blue-collar pro-gun voters in rural PA:
Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.
But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.
By highlighting his background in constitutional law* and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.
You know, sometimes I start to suspect that liberals think we’re stupid. ‘Yeah, I’m tough on guns, and…a great fan of the Second Amendment! Hope! Change! Arugula!’ Alas, apparently, we’re not:
Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs who received the Obama campaign e-mail on his gun record, said Obama sounds like he is “speaking out of both sides of his mouth.”
“I was at one of our county meetings last night and I mentioned this to [federation members],” Zullinger said Friday of the Obama outreach. “Everyone basically blew it off and weren’t buying it.”
They also quote a pro-gun Democratic state legislator who’s all ga-ga for Obama and trying to tell everyone who’ll listen what a great Second Amendment advocate Obama is. His name’s Dan Surra, and I’ll bet this really hurts his credibility. His constituents now know that his long commitment to gun rights is for sale when the Obamessiah turns on the charm.
___________
Okay, no more gun posts for a while. You guys are going to start thinking I’m some kind of gun nut. (I have at least one friend who’s going to read how many guns that guy had and get a very sheepish look on his face.)
___________
*I’m not sure, but I could swear that when I first read this article Politico talked about Obama’s background as a law professor. He used to do that, and then he stopped when he got called out for the fact that he was never technically a professor.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama Re-Aims for Pro-Gun Vote - Won’t Work : Conservative247
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » What Made Obama Change His Gun Stance Between Urban And Rural Pennsylvania?
- The Other McCain: Obama goes for gun vote?
- The Swit Boating of Barack Obama | BitsBlog
- Barack Obama Was Anti-Gun Before He Was Pro-Gun « Beltway Snark
- BizzyBlog » TILTPAT-BIDHAT4 (040808, Evening)
- Michelle Malkin » Obama wanted to ban gun stores within five miles of schools and parks?
- Michelle Malkin » Celebrating Heller
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Guns
Stop The ACLU
» The Treacherous PatriotHot Air
» Hillary bets short on Obama?Belmont Club
» Obama and the SwanGateway Pundit
» Call off the Kooks... MEDIA MISTRANSLATES MALIKI!Hotline On Call
» Gore Makes Surprise Visit To Netroots NationGateway Pundit
» Democrats Nix Gas Tax Holiday-- Offer Gas Tax Hike InsteadNewsBusters.org
» Bozell Column: A Guide to the Movie GalaxyNewsBusters.org
» Hannity to Obama: Do You Have The Guts To Come On My Show?protein wisdom
» Medicrap [Dan Collins]
TALK is cheap, and I ain’t buyin’ none. Actions speak louder than words, and his voting record is one of the most liberal in the Senate. The NRA, whose advice is more important to me than the word of another liberal Senator, rates both him and Hellary Rotten Clinton an “F” in voting for gun rights. That tells me all I need to know about him and my guns.
Senator Obama isn’t talking out of both sides of his mouth. One can support the legal ownership of firearms while still being against concealed carry laws. Those two positions aren’t necessarily counter-intuitive.
(I would really appreciate it if he had the stones to actively protest the District’s total handgun ban, but that’s probably political poison.)
And it goes without saying that he should be stressing the former to rural communities and the latter to urban communities. That’s just good politics.
Tell it like it is…the man who would be King of Amerika is a opportunistic liar! The only gun rights he avocates, is the right for the government to seize guns from law-abiding citizens, for “public safety” reasons.
If the man can so blatantly lie about his position on guns (a subject he obviously knows nothing about), then how can the public trust anything he says, much less, his vision of change! BHO and HRC…(turd-)birds-of-a-feather who cannot be trusted to run OUR country fairly, or to govern using common sense.
The fact that Obama is dishonest about his record and views on gun control might be old news to readers of this blog, but I wonder how many people he will actually fool out there during stump speeches.
Scary, because I never thought I would see a black, openly racist candidate for president getting so much fawning support from the electorate.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, right?
Sad thing is that there are a bunch of Democrat “Elmer Fudds” in Pennsylvania that buy this line and believe that anything other than “sporting” firearms–that is break shotguns and bolt action rifles–should be banned.
What the Fudds don’t realize is that the short-term goal of the gun control lobby is incremental: ban “scary” guns today, then it’s easier to ban not so scary “sporting” firearms tomorrow. The Democrat-supporting Fudds are digging their own graves.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It’s about personal sovereignty, individual rights, and national defense.
x2
The NRA has millions of people and they ALL look very closely to candidates on the very important issue of gun control and vote their hearts. It would not be bho or hc. I don’t care what the snake bho says, his forked tongue says what he thinks voters want him to say, I don’t think they believe him.
L
Okay, what did you do with see-dubya? At least your first post of the day was on guns! Luv ya man!
______________________
I was for the war before I was against it. Now I hear our fighting forces use guns so I will work to ban guns in the military and bring our men and women home.
B. Obama
Okay, he didn’t really say this but he might as well have. You want to ban my use of guns, ban the criminals use first. Here is a thought, ban murder. SHEESH!
letget–
I think you’re right. Hillary’s lying low on the issue, which I think is the smart play for someone with a bad record.
Another thought: Is it really smart for a politician seeking election to national office to advocate the negation of 48 states’ laws? Yes folks, 48 states–all except Illinois and Wisconsin–permit concealed carry, at least on paper.
What happened to the concept of Federalism?
It’s not simply 2nd Amendment rights versus a recent position on concealed carry permits, Rusty.
Obama’s record back even into his state legislature days when he backed gun control legislation are what is at issue now with his about-face to being a candidate trying to woo gun-rights activists, even in a blue state.
**************************************
Just out of curiousity, are the “innocent people” in such an “altercation” getting shot by a law-abiding permit holder or by the criminal who already has total disregard for the laws of the land?
What I have never understood from gun-control advocates is why they think creating a law restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens is suddenly going to make a robber or murderer stop and think, “Wait. It is against the law for me to possess this handgun. I can’t commit this crime in good conscience, knowing that it is against the law for me to have this weapon.”
Hello?! They are criminals. They don’t have any regard for the law, until they get caught, after having committed the crime and are facing prosecution.
Not if you support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, Rusty.
The right to keep (own), and bear (carry) arms (guns) shall NOT be infringed. If you aren’t allowed to own a gun, legally, then how can one legally bear one.
I think the reason most gun owners are against ANY restriction to gun ownership or right to carry, is that the misguided left in this country have a history and propensity to nibble away at our gun rights, a little at a time. It’s kind of like getting your foot in the door so the door cannot be shut in your face.
Any type of restriction, would just be the beginning!
At least Mike Dukakis and John Kerry were willing to admit that they favored very strong gun control laws and they were willing to face the consequences of losing in states like West Virginia. But Obama just fibs, knowing that the MSM will defend him in a way that they will do with no other candidate.
With the exeception of the truth, NOTHING Obama or Clinton say in their pursuit of votes would surprise me. They lie as effortlessly as most folks breathe, whether it’s a story of heroism or phony injustice. They are masters of making promises that they have no intention of keeping. Obama is a gifted liar, but a liar all the same.
And 71 guns isn’t that many, i’m approaching that myself.
All this really does is beg the question - why is the government targeting legal gun ownership?
They don’t. Gun crime is just an argument to get urban citizens (who don’t generally own guns themselves) to vote in gun control.
That is a very good question.
Um, yeah it is. I suppose not compared to the army, but I’m guessing you’re iin the top 1%.
Because legal gun owners are self-sufficient and don’t want, need nor trust the big nanny government to provide for their protection.
If the government can force dependency on it’s subjects, it justifies its existence and increases its control. This is the ultimate goal of all socialists. Self-reliance is the antitheses of socialism.
To get ready for the revolt that seems to be looming on the horizon against D.C.?
Obama’s strategy to woo blue-collar pro-gun voters in rural PA:
From the article:
Vouch for Obama? Yep, let’s not let his record get in the way about what he will do IF he is elected. He has made it pretty clear so let’s find some hunters that will say, “No he won’t. He supports your right to own, carry and use guns.” They will leave out the “on your person” part.
As to Obama being a professor:
Many law schools invite “lecturers” to campus, and I believe Obama was technically a “lecturer”. Other schools call the same position “visiting professor” or the like.
My understanding is that Obama was a “lecturer” - Ann Althouse did a post on this a while back that is worth checkin out for clarification. If Obama was a typical “lecturer”, then he wrote the lessons, taught the class, wrote the test, and graded the test - basically a professor, but academia is stingy in how it hands out that word, particularly at big-time schools like Chicago. So, Obama was, to the layperson, a professor in most every sense - just not called one by his counterparts. To the general public, this is what we call “a distinction without difference” in law school.
I can’t say it makes me support his policies (assuming he has them) any more, but there is a difference.
Seeing the PA legislature is looking at two controversial gun laws right now ( a one- amonth limit on handgun purchases, and requiring lost or stolen guns to be reported), I wonder if Obama would care to give his opinion?
I know where he’d stand on the issue, but do you think he’s willing to tell it to rural Pennsylvanians? I doubt it. I’m sure he thinks we’ll be distracted by his glow and not notice the pandering hypocracy.
#20 Barry F,
talk about counterintuitive…
Well, it is D.C.
#19 On April 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm, mojojojo said:
“All this really does is beg the question - why is the government targeting legal gun ownership?
Because legal gun owners are self-sufficient and don’t want, need nor trust the big nanny government to provide for their protection.
If the government can force dependency on it’s subjects, it justifies its existence and increases its control. This is the ultimate goal of all socialists. Self-reliance is the antitheses of socialism.”
Exactly!
Glad you brought this back up Michelle. As soon as I saw that Politico piece, I knew the Obama camp was trying to “fix” his position against concealed carry.
You are not a gun nut. Neither am I, but this is a VERY important subject as it’s pretty clear that CRIMINALS tend to move to other locations to do their bad deeds when there is a possibility their targets may be carrying a SIG 229R in 9mm - and trained to us it.
More
Ahh hell, USE it…
mojojojo,
I know. Sadly this is true for Republicans and Democrats alike.
The Liberals don’t get it. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. The purpose is to keep the government from infringing on our God given right to own firearms for defense of ourselves and our families from bad guys, like robbers, rapers, and murders, and this list of bad guys includes the government itself.
Forget hc and bho-
“Remember New Orleans!”
GSP
” Warren v. DC the court stated: courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”
This came after three women were raped repeatedly after having called numerous times on 911 and seeing police cars speed by their home. Since the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens, then those individual citizens must protect themselves. This is a basic civil right. What a contrast! In the “city of civil rights”, the Washington DC government denies a basic civil right going back to the 14th amendment!
Gees, works for jiHillary why not him. Or as McSame might say, my vast life experience makes me the best choice for law professor. Or how about his life experience making him the best choice for brain surgeon. No matter his life experience would you like McSame to operate on you. Or how about McSames life experience making his the best choice for President of the United States. No matter his life experience would you like McSame to the President of the United States. Yipes, this one goes too far.
So Obama, for you it might be I hope to be a law professor and change your ideas about gun ownership and concealment. Or I hope to be President of the United States and change everything I can. That should be a hope and a prayer.
Maybe he means we just go back to a holster on the hip? /sarc
The facts are 1) concealed carry reduces gun crime because criminals do not wnat to risk going up against an armed and trained populace; 2) criminals by definition do not obey the law (do you think they will be hindered in getting illegal guns because of new laws? No, they do so now); and 3) police show up (in almost all instances) after the crime, so they do not prevent criminal activity. Give me an armed, trained CCW unknown to the criminals anyday.
Yes. And, when the police do show up, tell them to have the EMTs bring a body bag for the criminal stupid enough to target concealed permit holder. Saved the taxpayers the cost of a lengthy trial and appeals process.
I love how liberals point to a weak and recent “legal precedent” when advocating their desire to overrule the 2nd Amendment (individual vs. militia). I have never heard a liberal effectively defending their desire to take away guns by citing the 2nd Amendment itself. The usual argument is something close to the fallacy that “times have changed, we no longer need guns”.
#34 On April 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, IrishEyes said:
“The facts are 1) concealed carry reduces gun crime because criminals do not wnat to risk going up against an armed and trained populace; 2) criminals by definition do not obey the law (do you think they will be hindered in getting illegal guns because of new laws? No, they do so now); and 3) police show up (in almost all instances) after the crime, so they do not prevent criminal activity. Give me an armed, trained CCW unknown to the criminals anyday.”
Exactly.
I do not want to live in a world like that in “Law & Order”, or in “Midsomer Murders” and other BBC cop shows, where the cops prevent virtually no crime, but just show up after the killing9s) and “investigate”.
That should make one feel really safe, oh yeah!
#36 On April 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, PBoilermaker said:
“I love how liberals point to a weak and recent “legal precedent” when advocating their desire to overrule the 2nd Amendment (individual vs. militia). I have never heard a liberal effectively defending their desire to take away guns by citing the 2nd Amendment itself. The usual argument is something close to the fallacy that “times have changed, we no longer need guns”.”
Agreed.
I’ve always looked at “legal precedent” with a jaundiced eye.
Socialist judges overturned tradition and some precedents (sometimes properly, but usually disastrously) years ago, and were lauded by socialists/secularists.
No concern expressed then for “going against legal precedent”.
But now, what do the socialists/secularists trumpet in defense of the status quo of abortion “rights” and restriction on gun ownership?
You’ve got it: “legal precedents”.
This sudden “switcheroo” on Obummer’s part is why many people don’t trust him nor like him all that much (and this includes both Dems and Repubs). It’s striking how the less informed who will vote for a person because he talks pretty will “overlook” the warts of a guy like Obummer.
It’s interesting how Obummer will say “gun control at all costs” to an urban crowd but decides that in order to appeal to rural populations he should lie instead of reveal his true policy stances. I wonder why that is? If Obummer is so proud of his gun control record why is he trying to rewrite that legislative history?
For someone who has been bleating the empty plattitudes of “change,” “hope,” and “unity,” should be added one little nugget for inspection: deception.
That’s the bit from politico’s post referencing his professor background.
He’s just another lying liberal. Words are just tools, and you use any and all tools you have to get the job done - the end justifies the means for them. Both he and Hillary are liars. And “our” candidate is a moderate at best who touts the fact that he wants to work with liars as a virtue.
God help our country.
One questions asked of Obama as part of a 1996 polling: “Would you support legislation that outlawed the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in the US?”
Obama’s one word answer: “Yes.”
Of course, outlawing possession would require confiscation and door-to-door searches.
This should tell everyone all they need to know about Obama’s stance on “gun control.” He’s very anti-Second Amendment and he’s not afraid to rob us all of our God-given right to self defense.
I’m sure he’s got more than one body guard carrying for his protection…us little people can’t be trusted with guns though. What an elitist jerk (jerk is my nice word)…
I don’t believe any of the canidates we are left with running for POTUS (including the grumpy old man) receives a passing grade from the NRA. From my research none are friends of the 2nd Amendment and one has done his fair share of damage to the 1st Amendment (McCain-Fiengold). BHO is really starting to sound more and more like “she who must not be named” when it comes to talking out of both sides of ones mouth. I believe it is called lying.
Happiness is a warm gun, and screw our consumptive nomonee, and the horse he road in on. HRC,and Obummer too.
Unless Obama proclaims that the Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens to own firearms, he ain’t talking to me.
Then again, I don’t believe any of the candydates on most of what they say.
During one of the campaign “debates”, I remember
McShamnesty saying that, while he used to carry a
.45 as a Naval pilot, he did not presently own a
gun.
As I recall … back in those days we aircrew
peons were issued .38’s.
Just sayin’… maybe Admiral’s sons were issued
.45’s… probably with pearl handles.
When he was in the Illinois legislature, he voted against a bill that would allow people to use guns to defend themselves in their own homes. This happened after a man in a Chicago suburb was indicted for using a gun to defend himself against an intruder.
Yeah, so much for that whole defender of gun rights routine, huh? It makes you wonder if he suddenly got an “epiphany” or perhaps, his views on gun rights and ownership have suddenly evolved. Probably not. That would be admitting he was wrong about something and he’s never done that, never will.
Hey, Obama - Virginia is for lovers. We have concealed carry here thanks to Governor George Allen, and gun related crime actually went down.
And I’d like to know this: Obama says he supports the right to bear arms (I’m rolling MY eyes) but that God given, Constitution-enshrined right should be subject to common sense regulation. Who decides what’s common sense - Barry and his ilk?
And another question. If a God given right to bear arms can be regulated, even disposed of, what about the court-given right to abortion? How about some common sense regulation on that, Barry?
What one has to realize is that criminals with guns are just undocumented CCP holders. Kind of like criminal illegal aliens are just undocumented American citizens. It makes sense to the liberal mind!
So do you guys think I should get a SOCOM M1A or a SA58 tactical, or wait for the FN SCAR?
I have a CCP here in Ohio. I’m like the airlines and their Marshals; I don’t carry all the time. But, when I do, it’s a bulky 45 Colt.
When asked why I carry a 45 I say “Because they don’t make a 46.”
Saukeye. Good ones. Longbow, I liked your quote:
It is call rhetoric. Words uttered to gain some desired effect. To the speaker, he, or she does not believe what they have said, nor even knows the common definition, just the desired effect.
Not being a liberal myself, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Obama; We in America shouldn’t carry concealed weapons….we should carry them in the open, front and center.