Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action Over NRA Ads

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WildSkyView
FactCheck.com has a conflict of interest as it's owned by one of Obama's close partners. -- I wouldn't even waste my time with that site.


And who is that




posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Say what you will about the NRA ads....but his voting record is indisputable. Some of the things he's voted for are on the extreme side.

This is why the usual defenders of Obama have not commented on this. It isn't really something that can be defended unless they actually agree with him on the issue.

Let's hope our 2nd amendment rights aren't infringed upon if he becomes president. We've had enough of our rights tainted and abused. It has to stop sometime.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


deleted

[edit on 26-10-2008 by David9176]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Let's hope our 2nd amendment rights aren't infringed upon if he becomes president. We've had enough of our rights tainted and abused. It has to stop sometime.



You say we've had our rights tainted and abused enough, but I'd like to ask where the gun owners have been all this time while our rights were tainted and abused? I think that's a fair question.

We get the Patriot Act and wiretapping and our fourth amendment stepped on, we get a bail out package that is paid for with our money and no one bats an eyelash, but then suddenly someone might want to restrict weapons and MY GOD ITS TIME TO GO TO WAR

I don't own a weapon personally, but why is it that many people that have a closet full of guns will say "I'll defend our freedoms with these if they are ever stepped on" and then when the government steps on our freedoms they turn the other way and go back to polishing their guns?

Just curious.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 





We get the Patriot Act and wiretapping and our fourth amendment stepped on, we get a bail out package that is paid for with our money and no one bats an eyelash, but then suddenly someone might want to restrict weapons and MY GOD ITS TIME TO GO TO WAR



Some don't realize the effects this has on them. It's not something they can see being done to them physically. Trust me, i'm against all of those things. But if you come up to someone's door and demand their guns...and people know that it's coming....let's just say i wouldn't want to be standing between them. I don't own a gun...but i do believe that we have every right to own one.

Banning or tough restrictions will only make the illegal gun trade worse. Prohibition is a good example of that.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I'm an avid gun owner. Always have been. I own a variety of weapons including AW's. I'm not adn Obama supporter but I'm certainly not a McCain supporter. As important as gun rights are, to excuse all of McCains shortfalls just because he appears to be gun-friendly is ludicrous. It's like Joe the Plumber and the general 'I'll vote for what's good for me personally not what may be good for the country as a whole'. The 2nd ammendment is important and we need to amke sure that NO ONE infringes that right. Whether it's Obama, Pelosi or the man in the moon. But it is certainly not in the country's best interst to pin an entire ellection on one aspect. I'm heartily against illegal guns. Round them up. Put automatic death penalties, life without parole, woodchipper feet-first on any violent crime committed with an illegal gun. Fine. But defending our 2nd ammendment rights is separate from the President or Congress. They have to be made aware --- without equivocation --- that we will NOT tolerate an infringement of the 2nd Ammendment.


Best answer ever. They'll not take my guns either, as I WILL NOT tolerate an infringement of my 2nd Amendment right. The 2nd Amendment is clear on it's purpose. And when a government official is trying to remove that right, that is when it's time to exercise it. For THAT is it's main purpose!



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Most of Obama's anti-gun voting record, if you'll notice, is from his tenure as a state legislator. His opinions on the issue seem to have changed a bit once he went from the state legislature to the US Senate - suddenly he found himself representing and talking to a bunch of Illinois gun owners.

When in the US Senate he voted alongside Republicans to make gun seizures after emergencies, as we saw in New Orleans after Katrina, illegal. If he was such a die-hard anti gunner as the NRA (of which I am a member) likes to pretend, he would have voted the other way.

As far as "gunbanobama.com" goes - I'm sure that's a very unbiased source LOL.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama's gun control positions, but at least he supports the Second Amendment as an individual right - even though much of his party has endorsed the idea that it confers a "collective" right to participate in a militia.

If the Second Amendment was the only issue at stake in this election, I might not be voting for Obama, even though I think the NRA propaganda is way overblown.

But as I see it, I won't be voting against the guy who is wrong on one issue, while his opponent is wrong on just about everything else.

That's why this gun owner will be voting for Obama this year.



[edit on 10/27/08 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
That's why this gun owner will be voting for Obama this year.
[edit on 10/27/08 by xmotex]


You are assuming that Obama will be running the system.

Obama is going to be the whipping boy of Pelosi and Reid. Pelosi is going to come up with massive taxes on ammo and drastically restrictive gun policies. Obama will sign on to it like the good democrat that he is once Pelosi reminds him of how he got to his position.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
honestly, americans and their whole "right to bear arms" is ridiculous in a modern world. that amendment to the law was made so that farmers isolated in the middle of nowhere could defend themselves against looters and enemy forces in the times when the country was born.

the fact that americans still feel that they need, or should have the right to own guns of any kind just goes to show you that they are nowhere near as advanced or civilized as they believe that they are.

the "bad guys" have guns because crazy gun toting rednecks have arsenals in thier living rooms that would enable the takeover of small countries. Eliminating the "law abiding citizens" having guns is a step in the right direction of removing guns from the hands of anyone not in a direct military or law enforcement capacity.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
You guys should be way more upset about this than just the possible infringement of second amendment rights - it's also an infringement of the first amendment - the right to free speech.

If the ads are stating facts, his voting record, then his campaign has no legal or ethical right to demand that they not be shown.

This was the exact same thing that happened when Stanley Kurtz was on the air with Milt Rosenberg on WGN - the Obama Campaign put it's members up to flooding the show with people demanding that Kurtz be silenced. Rather than debate him on the subject matter, they wanted to silence the voice.

That's stomping on the first amendment and you guys should be making just as big of an issue about that as well.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
If the ads are stating facts, his voting record, then his campaign has no legal or ethical right to demand that they not be shown.


Except the NRA aren't stating facts.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


His voting record speaks for itself. It doesn't matter if you think what the NRA is proclaiming is true or not....the point is that based on his voting record it is a possibility to see our 2nd amendment rights infringed upon.

I swear it seems that some people are willing to just give this man the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by davion
 


His voting record speaks for itself. It doesn't matter if you think what the NRA is proclaiming is true or not....the point is that based on his voting record it is a possibility to see our 2nd amendment rights infringed upon.

I swear it seems that some people are willing to just give this man the benefit of the doubt.


It doesn't matter what the NRA says? Why the hell does this thread matter then? Your thread is talking about Obama going against NRA ads, it certainly does matter if what the NRA is proclaiming is true or not, and according to a lot of organizations that have checked the facts against what the NRA is saying they are twisting things to meet their agenda. So I'd say yes he does have the right to threaten them.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by whiterabbit85
 


The right to keep and bear arms ridiculous? I guess its just as ridiculous as citizens from another country telling Americans, their rights are ridiculous.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join