Obama: My wife sees need for rural gun ownership

[stevie_d_64]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/po ... or_ru.html

--snip--

HARLAN, Iowa -- From his days of campaigning in Downstate Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama has been asked plenty of times about his views on gun ownership.

But the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate added a new wrinkle Saturday night while campaigning in conservative-leaning western Iowa, when he said his Chicago-native wife, Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

--end snip--

[stevie_d_64]

I was thinking about putting a poll question on this, but I couldn't justify it because I believe these people are well on track of being dumber than a bag of hammers...

I do not feel I have to expand upon that reality...

[Crossfire]

... Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

Because there are so many shopping malls in rural areas?

[stevie_d_64]

... Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

Because there are so many shopping malls in rural areas?

touche'!

[jimlongley]

So he introduces another dichotomy to split the vote. He can get the rural voters to vote for him because he believes in THEIR Second Amendment rights, and still decry the lack of gun control in urban areas.

[flintknapper]

I was thinking about putting a poll question on this, but I couldn't justify it because I believe these people are well on track of being dumber than a bag of hammers...

I do not feel I have to expand upon that reality...

But, a bag of hammers is at least useful.

[kwf2006]

Ok, who is running for office? him or his wife.

And why should anyone care what she thinks?

It should only be important what he thinks.

She might not have been thinking about crime, but big scary critters!

But she does get a G+ for being pro gun.

[Shootstir]

So he introduces another dichotomy to split the vote. He can get the rural voters to vote for him because he believes in THEIR Second Amendment rights, and still decry the lack of gun control in urban areas.

This is classic "bait-and-switch" politics from the Left's playbook. HE didn't say it, SHE said it. So he can claim it when it suits him, and he can disavow it when it doesn't. (Just like one post above claims.)

None of these guys would EVER say this on TV at a debate, nor would they opine this discussion in a large city market like Chicago or NY. They are simply playing to the base- in whatever zip code they happen to occupy at the time they utter these statements. Better to look at the Senator's voting record. It's pretty clear where his heart is...

[JasonH]

Reading the whole article he says:

I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

Then his wife says:

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

Which is just saying that "Even in a beautiful safe looking rural area I think people should have a gun."

What's wrong with that?

[stevie_d_64]

Reading the whole article he says:

I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

Then his wife says:

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

Which is just saying that "Even in a beautiful safe looking rural area I think people should have a gun."

What's wrong with that?

Its an elitist and disconnected position by someone straddling a campaign running for the top job in this country...And its dangerous...

No one I know is fooled one bit by the garbage they are putting out in this campaign...

It does not matter one bit where, or why, or how a citizen of this country needs to be "allowed" to exercise an inalienable, individual, moral and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in this country!

And when polititians take me for being a fool, thinking they are the ones granting me this right...

I'm one of the easiest people in the world to get along with...I go out of my way to make sure people are at ease with me...But this type of politics and agenda angers me to no end! And I do not like it when people like this assume me and my friends who understand this issue are considered unbalanced or dangerous to society...Just because WE value life more than they do, yet we have the ability to take life in the defence of it better than they ever dreamed they could!

Doesn't matter where I live...If I move to the moon, guess whats coming with me! Just because!

[shaggydog]

And when polititians take me for being a fool, thinking they are the ones granting me this right...

The problem, Stevie ol' friend, is that they (the politicians) ARE the ones granting you this right (whoa - that statement is gonna open a can of worms).

The Constitution, and it's releated amendments (including the BOR) CAN be subjugated (read "deleted entirely") if enough fascists can convince enough sheep to follow them.

That is why we must continue to recruit and educate as many, and as much, as possible.

[jimlongley]

Which is just saying that "Even in a beautiful safe looking rural area I think people should have a gun."

What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, if that's really what he's saying.

But my take on it is that he's saying that ONLY hunters, "sportsmen," (there's a well defined term for ya) and those who have a real need to protect their families (such as people who live a long (physical) way from where a 911 response would come from, never mind that city 911 responses can be as long or longer) should be allowed to have guns.

He says he "respects" the Second Amendment, which doesn't say he thinks it protects a right, much less an individual one, and then he adds "should be able" in the next sentence which pretty much says that gun ownership under his administration would be by permission.

Of course I have a tendency, garnered through long political observation, to put the absolute worst twist on anything ANY politician says, demoncrat or revoltingpublican.

[bpet]

jimlongley's statement

But my take on it is that he's saying that ONLY hunters, "sportsmen," (there's a well defined term for ya) and those who have a real need to protect their families (such as people who live a long (physical) way from where a 911 response would come from, never mind that city 911 responses can be as long or longer) should be allowed to have guns.

He says he "respects" the Second Amendment, which doesn't say he thinks it protects a right, much less an individual one, and then he adds "should be able" in the next sentence which pretty much says that gun ownership under his administration would be by permission.

is exactly what I was thinking when I read the earlier quote from the good senator. I only wish I could have stated it so clearly.

Thank you sir. Very well put!

Bill

[DoubleJ]

jimlongley's statement
I only wish I could have stated it so clearly.

Thank you sir. Very well put!

Bill

Yeah, he's really good at that!

[txmatt]

I think he's pretty much come out and said that he wants to keep guns out of urban areas- ex. Chicago. Maybe he really does believe that people in rural areas should be able to own guns, but that's not good enough. There is no clause about only people in rural areas in the 2A.

It's too bad; I was hoping that he might be (significantly) better than H, but I guess that was just wishful thinking. I wish more dems could take a cue from Richardson on gun rights.