TexasCHLforum.com

Then why did you vote for Mr Obama then? From what you wrote "Obama is a politician, that says it all", you should have either "not voted" OR felt that Mr Obama was more a politician (i.e. a liar) than Mr McCain was????

Further, I am assuming you felt that (and btw, you are using the words Republican and democat and liberal and democrat, I am not....I picked the person, based on their record would be the best person to represent my interests) Mr Obama would represent your interests in gun ownership better than Mr McCain would have. I am also assuming that you selected this based on some form of rational thought vs an emotion based decision, so please tell me what legislation about guns did Mr McCain put through that made you think that Mr Obama was a better person for the job? Basically, give me an example from your quote:

My reasons are not for discussion here. And there are many issues important to me, not just gun control. My comments, all of them, are about all politicians. Experience has shown them to be true. I don't fear Obama. I respect John McCain greatly. There are other important things, not for discussion here, that scare the hell out of me. One man's stand about gun control is not one of them. Why? Because Obama alone cannot do anything about gun control.

I accept other people's point of view including those that are directly opposite to mine because I just might learn something.


=====================================================================
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." John F Kennedy [September 14, 1960]

dewayneward wrote:For those that think Obama is "honest" and want to give him a chance.....please look at his record. I will leave my position with Obama and his pro-abortion position alone for a moment and look purely at the 2a piece. His record shows a demonstrated bent towards "common sense" gun ownership. His voting record on this issue is a clear indication of what he thinks about gun ownership. He clearly wants to take away your 2A rights.

Come on people, guns arent about hunting, Do you think this is what he is talking about when he talks about "common sense" ownership as it relates to 2A. Dont believe me, Fox news, drudge report, MCNBC, NPR, etc. go and read his record. It speaks for itself.

The one of the many "half truths" that he has used that is on the tip of my toungue was his promise to not raise taxes for people making under $250,000. What happened a few weeks ago to cigarrettes? Statistically, what percentage of the population that smokes makese under $250,000? Surely y'all can answer because its not above you pay grade?

I am not bashing Mr Obama. I didnt vote for him because of his pro-abortion views, but the 2A position that he holds downright scares me. And if that isn't enough to convince you, peruse that cute little who has CHL's map and notice which state is blue ????

Obama is a politician. That says it all. Without expanding the scope, let's just consider the Presidents of the US, politicians every one. A close examination of their records will show that they say one thing and do another, or do one thing and say something else. Why would anybody think this guy is different? It's got nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. There is no way for any Presidential candidate to take a position without alienating somebody. And like all of us, they are entitled to change their mind.

I see a lot of posting on forums that reflect the concern of the person regarding gun control. And the politicians in Congress and the President are making it worse because they are leaving all of us in limbo, wondering what will happen and when. The good part is they seem to be reluctant to do anything because of the pro-gun mood of the country.

============================================
Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.

Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
============================================

austinrealtor wrote: I realize this will sound like I'm riding the fence and trying to cozy up to both sides, but I honestly belief both LaUser & tfrazier make excellent and valid points. As responsible gun owners, we should voice our displeasure when lunatics who should not have guns somehow obtain them. And we should remind everyone of the millions of responsible gun owners who have never and will never committ such horrible acts with guns. And we should be equally displeased that law-abiding citizens are disallowed the basic human right of self-defense because of "gun free zones".

All of these lines of thought are very valid and very helpful to the cause of educating the general public to the positive benefits of guns and self-defense use of guns. The more the general public sees rational, upstanding gun owners the harder it will be for anti-gunners to demonize anyone who dares own a firearm.

Thanks, You said it better than I did. That is exactly what I meant.

tfrazier wrote:

LaUser wrote:...We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons...

You have it backwards: I'm not appalled that an unstable person got a gun.

You should be. Because the more this happens, people will find more reason to support anti-gun legislation.

Like Obama or not, fact is he is the President of the United States. He is a big change from Bush. And yes I voted for him.
However, the threat to our Second Amendment is more likely to come from others, such as the Congress who has the authority to pass legislation. Obama cannot sign or veto unless Congress passes legislation. Also, don't forget the individual states and local governments. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, D.C., New Your City, and Chicago to name a few, are examples of places that passed gun control measures and they had nothing to do with who is President.

Rather than sit back in shock and do nothing the next time some nut goes on a killing spree with a gun, we need to voice our concern and indignation at the event and the perpetrator. We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons. We need to drive home the fact that millions of guns owners are stable, cautious and law abiding and would never do such a thing. That is what we should be saying over and over and over. That is what the public needs to remember.

To me, bashing Obama at every turn is a waste of time and counter productive, cause it ain't gonna change a thing.

One after thought, all news media has an agenda, including FOX. It is just a case of who you agree with more.