Ammo For Sale

« « Action Airgun | Home | Technology » »

Field and Stream interviews the candidates

Obama and McCain talk guns and conservation.

Obama seems to be taking the Rudy Giuliani approach to guns. That is, he was all for gun control but has since changed his mind. And, like Rudy, he’s using the right terms. The question becomes whether it’s out of expediency and a desire to get votes or if it’s genuine. If he had signed on to the congressional Heller brief, it may have lent him some credibility that he really did find his pro-gun Jesus. He also displays his ignorance about firearms while stating his support for a ban on weapons that look like assault weapons. He’s either 1) confused that they do mean machine guns or 2) shilling all the propaganda he learned while on the board of directors at the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

McCain unequivocally says he does not support a ban on weapons that look like assault weapons nor does he support a ban on regular capacity magazines.

Via R. Neal.

Update: More from Bitter.

19 Responses to “Field and Stream interviews the candidates”

  1. Sean Braisted Says:

    The question becomes whether it?s out of expediency and a desire to get votes or if it?s genuine.

    He’s aiming to represent a different constituency. I don’t think gun issues were ever a real major driving issue for him.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    sure they were, when it came to banning them.

  3. Sean Braisted Says:

    Was he ever the lead sponsor on a piece of gun legislation?

  4. SayUncle Says:

    was he ever the lead sponsor of any legislation?

    Head of the anti-gun Joyce foundation; said he supported banning handguns; voted for a sweeping gun ban; etc.

  5. Chas Says:

    Obama was all for gun control but has since temporarily changed his rhetoric for the election.

  6. Sean Braisted Says:

    He sponsored about 800 bills int he State Senate.

    I’m not arguing whether he was or wasn’t “anti-gun,” I’m simply saying I don’t think it was a driving issue for him.

  7. SayUncle Says:

    and was lead sponsor of what?

  8. SayUncle Says:

    And how could it not be a driving issue for him? He ran the Joyce Foundation.

  9. Sean Braisted Says:

    Because I don’t quite feel like spending the next 5 hours doing research.

    In 2000-01 he was the lead sponsor on dealing with issues related to post partum depression, employment security, long term medical care, income tax/venture capital?, medicaid prescription prices, children’s insurance, earned income credit, state employee diversity, utility prices, domestic violence, video taped interrogations, etc…

  10. Sean Braisted Says:

    He ran it or he was on its board?

    But the Joyce Foundation is a multi-faceted organization dealing with environmental, cultural, employment, education, good government, and yes crime issues.

    Your interest relates solely to the guns, so that is what you seem to presume the organization is entirely about.

  11. SayUncle Says:

    he was a director. crime issues? Puhlease. it’s a gun ban group that pays for some of the more ridiculous anti-gun organizations.

  12. Sean Braisted Says:

    In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of $8,385,304 in its Environment program, $7,888,380 in its Education program, $6,302,775 in its Employment program, $3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program, $2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and $1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

    So, in 2005, 10% of their funding went towards gun violence programs.

    So, the question remains, is it possible for someone to be on the board, or even director of, a group whose main focus is environmental and education policy, but who also deals somewhat in crime and gun issues, and still not have the issue of guns be a driving force in their legislative career?

  13. SayUncle Says:

    it’s possible. but obama’s record indicates otherwise.

  14. Sean Braisted Says:

    Again, where is his record of guns being a driving issue in his legislative career. That is all I said, that I don’t think it was that important of an issue for him. When asked, he’s given his opinion; and when presented with bills, he’s voted on some, but his main focus has been on education, health care, campaign finance, etc…

  15. SayUncle Says:

    not relevant to me whether it’s driving. as prez, he’ll sign laws. and he has no issue signing gun bans.

  16. thirdpower Says:

    He was actually the sponsor on several anti-gun pieces of legislation:

    http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/39/33/

    He also had a lengthy diatribe against CCW:

    http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040401.pdf

    pg 100

    His legislative and historical record shows where he stands.

  17. Huck Says:

    The question becomes whether it?s out of expediency and a desire to get votes or if it?s genuine.

    Obama has a long record of being anti-second ammendment. The fact that he picked one of the most rabidly anti-second ammendment people in the USA for his running mate confirms that. He’s claiming a change of heart to try and win gun owner’s votes.

    After November 4th, win or lose, he’ll swing right back to his normal anti-gun self. I have no doubt about it.

  18. DirtCrashr Says:

    Genuine??? There’s nothing genuine about him, it’s all a cultivated work in progress.

  19. tjbbpgob Says:

    If he’s using the correct termanology in reference to weapons it’s because someone has put it on the telepromter.