search
top

About Those Obama Supporting Sportsmen

I honestly wonder how many of the folks like Dan Cooper, and some of the people on here who have come on claiming to be hunters and gun owners, have really been paying attention to the issue, his record, and who’s been endorsing him.  I mean, when a supposed hunters groups like American Hunters and Shooters Association comes out and says he’s their guy, and then the radical anti-hunting group like Humane Society of the United States comes out and says the same thing, alarm bells should be going off if you’re a hunter.  If you’re a gun owner or shooter, the Brady Campaign endorsement should tell you something.

I have to conclude it’s just willful ignorance.   I understand people not being a single issue voter.  There are a lot of gun owners out there who don’t self-identify as such — they vote primarily on other issues. That’s something I understand, even if I would emplore them to rank the Bill of Rights higher on their priority list.  But Obama is awful on guns.  His record makes that abundantly clear.  If you care about the Second Amendment, how can you possibly claim that you support Obama?  Don’t tell me what he’s saying now, in order to get elected: Tell me when in his career he’s supported the right to keep and bear arms.  You can’t.  Because it’s not there.  It’s not only not there, Obama has spent most of his career trying to destroy the Second Amendment.

So, Obama supporting visitors, I challenge you to convince me what Barack Obama has done for the Second Amendment to support and preserve it.  Don’t recite his campaign trail talking points.  Find me one thing in his record that indicates he supports the Second Amendment.  Then tell me why Dan Cooper, as a guy who makes his living manufacturing firearms, isn’t of his rocker for getting behind Obama.  It might be his right to vote against his self-interest, but voting against the self-interest of his employees and customers?  That’s not forgivable.

30 Responses to “About Those Obama Supporting Sportsmen”

  1. BTW, since you’re working for the campaign, would you please get them to get their computer to stop calling four+ times a day?

  2. Sebastian says:

    I’m not working for the campaign. I’m an NRA volunteer for endorsed candidates. The reason they are calling you is because some people honestly don’t have too much of an idea who they are voting for. You have a situation now where bother sides are competing for the attention of a vast number of ill informed voters. Maybe someday they will be able to weed out the informed voters from the ill informed, but for now everyone gets a call.

  3. My problem isn’t that they’re calling, it’s the volume. I’ve been getting multiple calls a day for like two weeks. Even if I were uninformed and up for grads, I don’t see how pestering me at home is a good strategy.

  4. Kathy says:

    I can’t. I just believe that when you add things up the net “win” for me falls under Obama as President rather than McCain. My 2nd Amendment Rights are less likely to disappear under Obama as opposed to my Abortion Rights under McCain.

  5. Sebastian says:

    Kathy,

    You’re just not a single issue voter, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I understand why someone would make the trade off you made if the abortion issues is important to them, and if you’re pro-choice, there’s no doubt Obama is the better candidate. , We all have to do things like that when we vote for or support a politician. I also think abortion should be legal, but on my list of issues, it’s not as high up for me as the Second Amendment.

    What I find shocking are people who claim to be gun voters, and try to tell me Obama is a good guy on guns. What you’re telling me makes sense. What they are telling me doesn’t make any.

  6. Bitter says:

    As a woman, I see gun rights far more at risk than abortion rights. There are no current challenges to Roe in the courts. There are for guns.

    More importantly, even if Roe was somehow overturned (it wouldn’t be, not with a 50-50 split on the issue), states would keep abortion legal. A few in the west, like Idaho or Utah, might ban it, but there would still be plenty of options. And yes, it is different than if guns are banned in some states, but not others. An abortion is (hopefully) a one-time procedure. If someone had to travel to get one, they can return to their normal life at home. If guns are banned at home, they cannot defend themselves or their families.

    As a woman, I’ve lived in the most “progressive” state where abortion was offered as the solution to every malady (no, I’m not joking about that), yet when I went to inquire about a gun permit, I was asked why a woman like me would want to have a gun around.

  7. Harold says:

    Sebastian, you need to make that two things, the exception that proves the rule is his vote for the Katrina inspired law that makes confiscations in emergencies personally actionable (i.e. it has real teeth, you can sue the individuals who did it).

    It’s telling that’s the ONLY pro-gun action we can find in his record.

  8. Sebastian says:

    Harold. I was aware of that, but figured all the folks who were coming on here telling me what a great guy Barack is on guns wouldn’t know that.

  9. Carl in Chicago says:

    The only thing I can find reference to is a vote to allow retired cops to carry. That is of course good in that it increases guns in the hands of good guys, but is also less than desireable because it widens the authority gap between “cops and citizens.”

    Can anyone confirm that this vote was?

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2007/01/22/obamas-record/
    But he also voted in favor of allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons. Gibbs said that would be his only exception to a prohibition against the right to carry a concealed weapon.

    On the Issues has him as “Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)” but the vote for the federal bill was in 2004 as I recal.

  10. Carl in Chicago says:

    Here is some more on this vote … supposedly this Illinois vote was in 2004, not August 2007 as stated (or implied by On the Issues).

    http://www.thedailyconservative.net/2008/10/13/if-obama-wins-you-better-hide-your-guns/
    Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcing and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

    When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.”

    It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

  11. SayUncle says:

    they’re not here to defend obama. they’re here to attack you.

  12. Gibcity says:

    Did you notice that the “So-Called” pro gun Midway maggots only donate to the NRA with the money donated from customers that add the option on their order. I don’t see any national donations from the owners specifically!! (Is this a case of riding the middle of the road)

  13. workinwifdakids says:

    “Then tell me why Dan Cooper, as a guy who makes his living manufacturing firearms, isn’t of his rocker for getting behind Obama.”

    Ahem *cough* MADE *cough* his living.

    You meant “made,” as in past tense. /giggle/

  14. Carl in Chicago says:

    http://www.midwayusa.com/nrapage.dll/gettotal

    Gibcity, your comment is not clear. What exactly do you mean? I take it you don’t like Midway USA as you refer to them as “maggots”, but it’s unclear what else you are trying to say.

  15. Sebastian says:

    Gib:

    Did MidwayUSA run over your dog or something? :)

  16. >I was aware of that, but figured all the folks who were coming on here telling
    >me what a great guy Barack is on guns wouldn’t know that.

    So you’re arguing in bad faith? Your just lost a lot of credibility with me.

    You were actually starting to have an effect on me. I probably would have still ended up voting for Bob Barr, but I was doubting whether I was making the right choice. Now I find out like pretty much every other McCain supporter, as soon as you start pulling at the threads, it turns out they’re deliberately misrepresenting stuff to try and scare you.

  17. Melancton Smith says:

    I think all of the gun owners insisting that Obama is a defender of the Second Amendment just want to believe.

    Regarding Roe v Wade…how the heck can McCain reverse it even if he wants to? There is no way he is getting a conservative justice confirmed by the Senate.

  18. Peter O says:

    Stormy, the only way they would have found that info is by doing research. If they had done research, they would have found that that is his only support for gun rights. A big problem is those who support Obama without doing research.

  19. Sebastian says:

    I wasn’t arguing in bad faith, I wanted to see whether they had actually done their homework, and were willing to argue his record, rather than just regurgitating Obama’s talking points.

  20. BC says:

    My 2nd Amendment Rights are less likely to disappear under Obama as opposed to my Abortion Rights under McCain.

    This strikes me as terribly naive.

    The worst-case scenario for abortion rights is that John McCain is elected president and tries to appoint implacably anti-Roe justices to the Supreme Court in place of retiring pro-Roe justices like Ginsberg and Stevens. It would take an act of God for such individuals to get confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Even assuming that such a miracle occurred, and Roe was overturned, the end result would be that abortion would continue to be available on demand, and without meaningful restrictions, in most of the country.

    The worst-case scenario for gun rights is that Barack Obama is elected president and tries to appoint implacably anti-Heller justices to the Supreme Court in place of retiring pro-Heller justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. Such individuals would sail through a Democrat-controlled Senate and proceed to either overturn Heller, or render it a nullity by determining every hare-brained gun control proposal passed Congress and signed by Obama to be among the “reasonable regulations” that the Second Amendment permits.

  21. AntiCitizenOne says:

    “Such individuals would sail through a Democrat-controlled Senate and proceed to either overturn Heller”

    Well, there’s an election every year, why can’t you just thin out the Democrats’ ranks in Congress bit by bit?

    “implacably anti-Heller justices”

    guess we all better start making a list right about now…

  22. Homer says:

    “Well, there’s an election every year, why can’t you just thin out the Democrats’ ranks in Congress bit by bit?”

    Excellent idea. Now, if you can tell me how Barney Frank has managed to stay in Congress for 27 years, why the people of Nevada have kept Harry Reid in the Senate for 22, and what’s so wrong with the water in Massachusetts that Kerry’s been there 19 years and Kennedy has established a permanent position (46 years), we can get started on that.

    While we’re “thinning out the ranks bit by bit” with each election, the left will still be placing leftist judges in lifetime positions in every federal court, not just the Supreme Court, and their decisions will influence life in this country for centuries.

    Kathy, above, is concerned about her abortion rights; I agree with BC. Even with a USSC decision overturning Roe vs Wade probably the majority of the 50 states, and undoubtedly those more liberal, will institute statutes permitting abortion. I would expect that nearly all states would permit them to some degree, and trying to dissuade the states of that would certainly be a 4th and 10th Amendment issue. Worst case scenario: one might have to drive or fly a couple of states over to obtain one. But, to have an abortion one must first be alive, and without the means to protect that life one may not be in a position to undertake the activity that leads to needing an abortion.

  23. B Smith says:

    Excellent point, at the end there, Homer— If allowed to prevent a rape by using a gun, the (perceived) necessity for a lot of abortions might be averted. :-D

  24. RAH says:

    Many of those have been bashing is part of the sycophants that are the Obamanuts that have used to flood sites with pro Obama news and anti Mccain and GOP comments. Thers has been a definite orchestrated campaign to demoralize GOP supporters in order to supress the vote.

    The media line of the high democratic registration drive during the primaries have been demolished with the fake registrations by ACORN from 1.3 million to 400,000. That is just an example. Many of these are not part of a conspiracy but have the same interest and visit other sites that suggest the tactics.

  25. userunit-one says:

    Hi! I am from Germany. First: I was thinking that values like liberality, freedom of speech and democracy are the basics of your country. So why you are starting a campaign against a man who uses his democratic rights and the rights to have an opinion. At least he lost its job, a job in a company he foundet. I have no idea, why this happend. Are you not able to accept a different opinion? But you have to do this, if you are a member in a democratic country. Is this the reason, why you love guns?
    I think you need a gun prohibition, so that you can learn, what other societys worldwide have learned: respect. what you only know is threat. You are not able to discuss, so you threaten and destroy guys like dan cooper. only, why you are not strong enough, to accept a different opinion. like animals: not the common sense rules – the threat-potential wins! shame on you!

  26. Harold says:

    Many of those have been bashing is part of the sycophants that are the Obamanuts that have used to flood sites with pro Obama news and anti Mccain and GOP comments. Thers has been a definite orchestrated campaign to demoralize GOP supporters in order to supress the vote.

    [ Gives the false claims of ACORN’s reported new registrations as an example. ] Many of these are not part of a conspiracy but have the same interest and visit other sites that suggest the tactics.

    RAH:

    David Axelrod, who Wikipedia describes as Obama’s “chief strategist” but who I’ve read is the one who runs his campaign is notorious for Astroturfing, the creation of apparently spontaneous grassroots support.

    Too many blogs that seldom or never see these sorts of postings have quickly received them for the Obama campaign not to have an industrial strength Astroturfing operation running, although in this case, with this blog mentioned by domain name in USA Today, that perhaps wasn’t needed.

    Although it’s interesting that these folks have stopped paying attention to this blog, but with it being so close to the election there could be many explanations.

  27. Lysander says:

    I think you need a gun prohibition, so that you can learn, what other societys worldwide have learned
    Yea, tell us about firearm prohibition – it worked real well for Germany in 1938, didn’t it?

    Now, as to opposition to Mr. Clark’s opinion: he’s free to have it, and he probably still holds it. If he wants to back someone that will put the company he founded out of business, that’s his problem. But, we have a right not to buy from his company in disagreement with his position, and to inform them of that fact. That he was fired by the board of directors shows they understand what is good for their company, which is to get rid of a spokesman that is damaging it. What the company actually makes or does in the marketplace is immaterial.
    Got it?

  28. Carl in Chicago says:

    Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn.

    userunit-one says:
    Hi! I am from Germany … I think you need a gun prohibition, so that you can learn, what other societys worldwide have learned: respect.

    How old are you, Userunit? Did you learn about and discuss gun control in your history classes?

    Indeed. How quickly we forget.

  29. DirtCrashr says:

    “why can’t you just thin out the Democrats’ ranks in Congress bit by bit?” – because the ranks are protected by a moat of Gerrymandered voting districts, in CA anyhow. Boxer, Feinstein, and Pelosi are entrenched in secure districts, in a State that’s barricaded against change.

  30. farm.dad says:

    userunit-one

    The Wonderfull thing about America is that our first amendment rights garontee that we can speak out about our opinion of what Cooper did by supporting Obama while ( in my opinion ) charging userous rates for rifles his company built . He is free to do that just as i am free to choose other rifles to buy . If his actions have cost him his ” job ” well actions have conciquinces , and had he been building high end baby strollers he likely would not have taken a hit . As to your comment on our ” needs ” ill just suggest that you put your own country’s house in order and not worry about what the Americans need . I have no dobut that you dont understand our reaction to Cooper , you simply have no frame of referance to be able to comprehend living in our system. I will in fact sir submit that we react as we do at least in part as we do so we will not wake up living in one real similar to the one you live in .

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Alphecca » Sebastian Issues a Challenge - [...] hunters, etc., for telling them to boycott Cooper Arms, as well they should. So, Sebastian issues a challenge. One…
  2. SayUncle » Low percentage - [...] in a post entitled About Those Obama Supporting Sportsmen: I have to conclude its just willful ignorance. I understand…
top