Obama & your gun rights

[RELH]

A lot of hunters and firearm's owners cheered the decision by the U.S. Supreme court concerning the 2nd. ammendment. What a lot of you failed to see that it was a ruling that was decided by ONE SINGLE vote of 5 to 4. Four of those judges stated that the 2nd. ammendment did not apply to the individual rights concerning firearm ownership.
Now we have a Sen. running for the office of president. Sen. Obama has a factual voting record of being very anti gun and has made statements that show he does not believe in gun ownership by the citizens of this country. Of course, while trying to gather votes, he has soften his anti gun position, but his prior record and statements show him to be a very strong anti gun congressman.
It is predicted that the next elected president may appoint 2 or 3 new judges to the Supreme Court bench. It is very obvious that if Obama is that president, he will appoint judges that do not believe the 2nd. ammendment applys to us citizens. If the Supreme Court becomes stacked with judges that do not believe in the 2nd. applying to citizens, we can see a reverse of this important court decision and a slew of anti gun laws being upheld by that court.
I do not care what your politics are, if you are a true hunter and firearms owner that values your ownership of firearms, you will not vote for the next president that will be the instrument of taking away your rights to own firearms.
If you really do not care about your guns, you will vote for Obama. This is a issue that allows no fence sitting, either you are pro gun or anti gun. Bush has made numerous mistakes during his presidency, but appointing good supreme court judges was not one of those mistakes. His appointments saved our guns by one lousy single vote.

RELH

 

[LESGO54]

im with u relh.if obama wants my gunz let HIM come try and take um.

 

[mozey]

This is far and away the biggest reason I will hold my nose and vote for McCain...

 

[eelgrass]

Very well put RELH! But I think the American people might be looking for CHANGE. And hope. And Obama will bring that to them.

Eel

 

[Antlers_Ink]

Yeah, change: for the worse and hope: like hell we can survive the B.S. he could put this country through.

 

[NeMont]

When I hear this case used as a reason for voting Republican it makes me wonder if either: A. You don't understand how our system works or B. That any red herring will be believed.

Using Supreme Court nominations as a reason to vote for a presidential candidate is dangerous and a poor way to sift through the issues.

First of all the Supreme Court hadn't heard a 2nd Amendment Case in over 70 years so most likely the next one won't come along in our lifetime.

Secondly two of the four Justices who dissented were Republican Appointees so just because a Republican appoints them does not mean that they believe in gun rights.

Thirdly of the 5 justices who voted for upholding the 2nd Amendment the oldest are Scalia and Kennedy. Unless Scalia gets shot while duck hunting with ##### Cheney he most likely will out live an Obama Presidency, even if Obama was a two term President. Remember the last two presidents, WJC and GWB, were two termers and both only got to nominate two justices apiece.

Fourth there is no way that the Senate in it's current make up is going to affirm a wild eyed liberal to the Supreme Court. If the Democrats gain more seats in Nov. they may be more liberal but if that is fools poker for the Red State Democrats and the Bluedog democrats.

There lots to worry about in the upcoming election and the lots to not like about Obama but this is one issue that you need to stand back and take a clear look at. Don't believe the NRA hype as they are always on a permanent fund raising campaign

Justices Voting to Affirm:
Justice Scalia age 72
Justice Kennedy age 72
Justice Thomas age 60
Justice Alito age 58
Chief Justice Roberts age 53

Dissenting:
Justice Ginsburg age 75
Justice Souter age 69 ( appointed by a Republican, GHWB)
Justice Breyer age 70
Justice Stevens age 88 (Another Republican Appointee, Pres. Ford)

Nemont

 

[woodruffhunter]

Nemont,

You do make some valid arguements. However, you said:

"First of all the Supreme Court hadn't heard a 2nd Amendment Case in over 70 years so most likely the next one won't come along in our lifetime".

I hardly see logic in comparing the last "70 years" to the next
70 years. My instincts tell me that there may be difference
in the overall beliefs of present and future politicians as opposed to the thinking of the past 70 years.

Regardless, if justice Souter and Stevens dissented, I believe
that you would readily agree that the larger percentage of democrats are against our "gun rights".

70 years ago there was a smaller gap (IMO) between the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats (most) IMO, are too far to the left and it will continue to get worse.

 

[RELH]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-08 AT 03:07PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-08 AT 03:05?PM (MST)

Nemont did bring up some viable opinions, but they are just opinions like mine are. I have to agree that I would not want to compare the past 70 years, concerning firearm court issues, to the next 70 years. It is well known that the anti gunners wanted to wait until they had a more favorable court to take this case to court and win it. Politics played a very big role in it being heard this year. Instead if it waiting for a more liberal court and the anti gunners intending to run gun right cases though for a ruling they wanted.
Woodruffhunter made a very strong argument over how the gun issue thinking has changed, and this change has taken place since 1968 to a big degree. Most of us older farts will remember the "gun control act" that took place in 1968 and it has gotten worse since then.
In my opinion, if we would have had several more court judges appointed by a liberal president, we would have lost this court decision.
I will admit my voting is very strong on politicians that are pro gun. I do not care if he/she is GOP or Dem. I have this thing about the odds being in my favor, most of the time, with a politician that does not fear me and my fellow citizens with their guns in possession. Most of the time that politician is one that I do not have to fear about him/her trying to take away my rights as guaranteed by our constitution.
In a nutshell, I believe that we need to stack the deck as much as possible in our favor in order to keep our firearms.
Too many times have I talked to Brits or Aussies that told me they never believed it would happen in their country, and one day they woke up and their gun rights were gone.
Anyone in this country that believes it will not happen here is living in a very optimistic world that does not exist any more as it did in the past.
Nemont, you also need to take a second look at the ages of the judges you posted. The majority of them will be around 80 or older in a two term president in office. The odds are that 2 or 3 will die or develop medical problems forcing their retirement. I know you can figure what would happen if Obama is president with a majority liberal democrat congress to confirm his anti gun liberal appointment to the bench.

RELH

 

[huntindude]

As usual Nemont is correct, except for those few times he disagrees with me he always is.

After this landmark decision the anti gun nuts are at the bottom of my list of things to worry about. as a gun owner and hunter the wolves are at the top of my list in this department. the wolf reintroduction is the one thing I hold most against Clinton, not that is was all his doing or it wouldn't have happened anyway but everytime I think about Babbitt I want to choke him and Clinton. but it won't influence my vote in 2008 because what has Bush done to help and what will McCain or Obama do? nothing, it doesn't appear to have any partisan prefference or importance.

The anti hunters and the anti gunners are on the same team, the anti hunters scored a home run with the wolves and the anti gunners just took a body slam. if you like to fret this would be a good time to think about your priorities and not get all worked up with the NRA fundraiser propaganda.

 

[eelgrass]

Interesting! What if the vote had been 5-4 the other way? That would mean that we no longer have the right as individuals to own firearms. Think about that! Maybe it's better that way? Maybe the gun is old school, barbaric, and headed the way of the dinosaur.

No doubt, this world is becomming more liberal and "progressive". We are inching closer every day. Hunter numbers are falling, and more and more people are giving up their personal responsibilities and turning to government to take care of them. Forty percent of our work force work for local, state, or federal government.

Man caused global warming is quickly becomming main stream thinking, and it will soon bring major lifestyle changes, no matter who is elected president. Oil is key at this point. It's what drives this country, and it is looked upon as evil, nasty and sinful. Only for the masses though. The eletists are exempt.

The Endangered Species Act is alive and well. Wolves are quickly spreading, and eventually will have a major impact on our big game herds, and our hunting opportunities. More species are in the process of becomming listed all the time.

Illegal immigration is not being stopped. If fact I think it is encouraged by our government. Pick and choose the laws to enforce, I guess. If a legal citizen doesn't pay taxes see what happens.

But hey! This is the age of progression and enlightenment! It's the natural order of things. We're on our way to a better world for all of us. It's all good!

I'm glad I'm 60 and not 20.

Eel

 

[RELH]

Eel it is a good thing that you and I are as old as we are. If we were 20, not so far in the future we would be tried or killed for acts of treason when we try to start a new revolution to overthrow our corrupt politicians for taking away our rights.
By the time it happens, we will be dead or too old to mount a fight unless we can still shoot from our wheelchairs. Damn it's not late to practice firing from that position.

RELH

 

[NeMont]

Do any of you know the process by which a case reaches the Supreme Court in order to be heard?

Also I understand that politics plays a role, it plays a role in everything that happens in Washington DC.

My point is that the Supreme Court cannot just decide to take up a discussion of the 2nd Amendment. Also they can choose not to hear the case if they so choose.

Why would there be a move to bring more cases in the future then in the past? After 8 years of GWB appointing conservatives judges throughout the Federal Courts system there is a good chance that they won't hear alot of cases involving the 2nd Amendment.

I am as pro gun as anybody on this board but I don't trust that just because a Justice is nominated by a Republican he or she will rule a given way. With only 2 judges out of 9 appointed by a Democrat it would appear Republicans suck at picking very conserative Judges.

I won't base my vote on this issue, Period.

Nemont

 

[202typical]

"With only 2 judges out of 9 appointed by a Democrat it would appear Republicans suck at picking very conserative Judges."

Now that my fiends IS an understatement.

Republicans suck at a lot of things these days.








"dude, nothing we can say will make us like as childish/silly as the rants you post. We HAVE posted the parts, you chose to ignore them. We get it, you like soldiers that sell out their fellow soldiers for political gain, and you hate or hold in contempt those that take a stand. We get that you manage to see NOTHING but bad in Republicans, and nothing put pure and honorable intentions from fellow limp wristed libs. We got it already, now move on."
(PRO July 3, 2008)