Debating Their Position On Guns

Debating Their Position On Guns

Friday, April 18, 2008

Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.

As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”

Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”

Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”

Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”

“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.

“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.

“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.

What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.

Durka Durka Obama Jihad!

A picture is worth a thousand words, aint it?

"Barack Obama’s campaign is expressing outrage at a new photo attributed to Clinton campaign sources that depicts the Democratic presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb.
The picture, which appeared at the top of Monday’s Drudge Report, says Clinton staffers circulated the 2006 photo over the weekend."


It shows the Illinois muslim senator fitted as a....... surprise........MUSLIM elder, during his visit to northeastern Kenya that was part of a five-country tour of Africa.

We posted awhile ago about Obama's being a muslim. Read it here: http://grumpysgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-is-muslim.html


Grumpy

Election Update! Obama Likes Hunters But Dislikes Handguns?

Election Update! Obama Likes Hunters But Dislikes Handguns?
This story is from the Gun Digest the Magazine Web site forums.

While campaigning in Idaho the weekend before Super Tuesday, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd, "There are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state — we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."

Yet according to Jake Tapper, ABC News' senior national correspondent, "In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he 'supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns' — a fairly extreme position. However, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help. You guessed it — his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.

Islamic "Justice"?

Recently, three people have been informed that they will soon be sentenced to death in Iran. These individuals, one man and two women, are not to be hanged, but sentenced to death by stoning. Under Iran's Penal Code, Article 104 - the size of the stones is specified. They must not be as small as a pebble, and be large enough to cause pain, though not large enough to kill with one strike. In effect, the killing must be prolonged, and the victim is legally obliged to be tortured before death.
Article 102 specifies: "The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts."
Amnesty International stated on January 15, 2008 that there were then nine women and two men in Iran who were waiting to be stoned to death.
On February 1 this year, Italian news agency AKI stated that a man from the city of Sari in the north of Iran had been sentenced to death by stoning. This man was a 29-year old music teacher called Abdollah (Abdullah) Farivar. He is married with two children. He was convicted of adultery.
In this case, it is doubtful whether under Shia jurisprudence he had actually committed adultery. He had signed a "short-term marriage contract" with one of his students. In Iran, such a contract is called "sigheh" or "sighe". Usually, such short-term marriage contracts are called "Mut'ah". Iranian sociologist Amanollah Gharaii Moghaddam said in 2006: "Short-term marriages are a form of legalised prostitution. A state must not and cannot legitimise prostitution."
Farivar had been arrested in December 2006. According to Human Rights Watch, a year after his arrest, Branch Two of the Penal Court of Sari had sentenced him to death. This sentence was approved by the Supreme Court, and his family were told by local authorities last week that the execution will be carried out imminently.
Abdollah Farivar's family claimed that he had signed a "sighe" contract. According to AKI, the only known case of a man being stoned to death for adultery took place in Tekestan (Takistan) in the Qazvin province in the north of Iran last year. It involved a man called Jafar Kiani who lived for more than ten years with a married woman, by whom he had two children. Jafar Kiani was stoned to death on July 5 2007 in the village of Aghche-kand, outside Takistan, though another source places the date at July 27, 2007.
In 2002, the practice of stoning had been officially suspended by Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashermi Sharoudi, who headed the judicial authority. the stoning of Jafar Kiani had officially ended the moratorium on stonings.
Despite this, the anti-Ayatollah website Iran Focus claimed that in May 2005, a man and a woman were said to have been stoned to death in a cemetery in Mashad, in the northeast of Iran. Their crime was claimed to have been the murder of the woman's husband.
The recent case of the two women who have been warned they will soon be stoned to death again involves a dubious claim of adultery. The news on this is reported by the Telegraph, Agence France Presse, AKI, Human Rights Watch and NCR-Iran.
Zohreh Kabiri, aged 27 and her sister Azar Kabiri, 28, were arrested ini February last year. They were accused of having "illegal relationships". The accusation had been made by the husband of Zohreh Kabiri. In March 2007, Branch 128 of the General Court in Karaj, north of Tehran, sentenced them to receive 99 lashes.
Jabbar Solari, the lawyer for the two sisters, said that the sentence was carried out. Instead of being freed, the women were kept in jail and then tried again. They were sentenced to death by stoning. The evidence against the two sisters is said to be contained in a video. Mr Solari said he did not have access to this video.
Zohreh's husband had placed a camera in his house to catch his wife in the act of adultery. He said, according to the newspaper Etemad: "She did not treat me well and her actions made me feel she did not want to live with me any more. To make sure I planted a camera in the house... When I watched the tape two days after, I found out that she and her sister brought over men after I left and had relationships with them."
Zohreh, a teacher, said: "I was a teacher and loved my job but my husband did not let me work... he was always suspicious of me and thought our differences were because I had an affair. I do not approve the confessions that I made in the investigation phase and I deny what I said."
Azar's husband, according to Etemad, had not filed any complaint against his wife. The women claim that though they are seen in the video, there is no scene on the video to show that they were engaging in sexual relations.
If anyone has any doubt about the sheer barbarism of stoning, then click to watch this video (warning - extremely disturbing scenes).
The issue of Iran's injustices is complex. Iran still sentences people to death for crimes committed before the age of 18, despite signing agreements to the contrary. According to a 2007 Amnesty International report, in 2006 one person under the age of 18 and three people who had committed crimes while still juveniles were executed. A total of 177 individuals were put to death in Iran in 2006.