Obama And ACORN Officials Set Sights On Gunowners

[Geezah]

ACORN, the publicly funded national organization linked to voter fraud in several states, is now actively interfering with the exercise of firearm civil rights in New Jersey, and the Second Amendment Foundation is calling for an immediate federal investigation.

One example of ACORN's gun control activism is when its officials intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Jersey City, New Jersey's local gun control ordinance, which was struck down December 13, 2006 in New Jersey state court as a violation of state law pre-empting stronger local gun ordinances.

"ACORN has, since 1998, received an estimated $31 million in government funding," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Now they have intervened in a New Jersey gun rights case in defense of an illegal Jersey City one-gun-a-month ordinance that violates the state preemption statute."

"For the past few election cycles," Gottlieb noted, "ACORN has clearly grown more partisan toward the political Left. ACORN'S PAC, in fact, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, even though their tax-exempt status prohibits endorsement of political candidates. That's hardly surprising since he used to serve as their legal counsel and he taught the group about community organizing. ACORN and Obama are lockstep in seeking to destroy our Second Amendment rights," he stated.

"The organization is currently under FBI investigation over allegations of voter fraud in several states," he added.

"Bad enough that ACORN is implicated in fraudulent activities in several states, but now an ACORN chapter in the Garden State is working against the ability of New Jersey gun owners to exercise a constitutionally protected individual civil right to own a handgun," said former NYPD detective, Sid Frances.

"It is an outrage that this group has intervened to defend an antigun ordinance that has already been declared illegal by the court," he observed. "So long as ACORN accepts one penny of public funding, the organization should remain absolutely neutral on social issues, political campaigns and especially legal actions defending the right to keep and bear arms."

"We call upon the FBI to expand the scope of its ACORN investigation and focus on the group's involvement in the Jersey City case," Gottlieb stated.

"We support Ohio Congressman John Boehner's request that the White House immediately block all federal funding of ACORN activities until this group's questionable activities are fully investigated. We want to know how they are paying for attorneys, and why Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice and the Public Interest Law Center are providing legal assistance to ACORN for this effort."

"This is still the United States, not a socialist gulag," Gottlieb concluded. "Public money should not be given to private organizations which then turn around and utilize that funding to usurp the electoral process and erode constitutionally guaranteed civil rights."

The fact that the federal government is planning to use ACORN as part of it's 2010 Census is cause for Americans to be very concerned.

Many political observers see something more sinister at play with Obama and ACORN's interest in disarming law-abiding citizens.

"This gun control effort is part of an overall government takeover by the radical left who now control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The next part of the Obama-ACORN plan is a new military force separate from the US Armed Forces," claims political strategist Mike Baker.

"Obama has called for a 'civilian national security force' as powerful as the US military, comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but compared by conservatives to the Nazi Hitler Youth," warns Baker.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," said Senator Obama during his campaign.

Link (http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212236101.shtml)


...........................

[Createdeemcee]

If this is true, I guess this would be considered Obamas Black Water. There are many private clubs/ Malitias that would be serious threats to any plans of such a thing, American gun owners have long long reaching power.

[Holmes85]

I know Wisconsin hunters would be up in arms over this (literally).

[Panchito12]

Any thoughts of Gun Control during the next 2 years is dead on arrival. Just move on folks, nothing to see here.

[Blue_0]

Congress won't let gun control happen. Nothing to get excited about.

-- Bluelight

[XShipRider]

I'm all for amending the Constitution, if that be the will of the people. As for gun ownership - it seems a majority wants to keep the current Amendment intact. Amen.

As for ACORN being funded with tax dollars -- Am I the only one who sees the conflict of interest here?

[Geezah]

Any thoughts of Gun Control during the next 2 years is dead on arrival. Just move on folks, nothing to see here.

Feinstein and others like her are waiting in the Shadows ready to pounce. They know now is not the time, but after the 2010 election I look for there to be on onslaught.

[bugkill]

Feinstein and others like her are waiting in the Shadows ready to pounce. They know now is not the time, but after the 2010 election I look for there to be on onslaught.

Not going to happen. If gun control was truly going to happen, it would have a long time ago. The country is not for it and that is the end of it. Only a few democrats can afford to be so leftist that they would like gun control and actually vote for it, but the majority know that it would be the end of their political aspirations if they did it.

Also, all this crazy talk about President Obama taking away guns means absolutely nothing. Obama is not stupid and he definitely does not want to deal with a gun debate while dealing with more important things. People also forget that Obama, like any other president, has a set time for how long they are in power, so people really need to tone down with all the nightmarish scenarios.

I hated it when the far left and other liberals did it to Bush and I won't stand for it now.

[Geezah]

Not going to happen. If gun control was truly going to happen, it would have a long time ago. The country is not for it and that is the end of it. Only a few democrats can afford to be so leftist that they would like gun control and actually vote for it, but the majority know that it would be the end of their political aspirations if they did it.

Not at all, the current administration is so stacked with gun control nuts(former Clintonistas) it's just a matter of time.

While they may harp on about the Right meeting them half way, they never return the favour.
Holder wants to reinstate the AWB(which Obama said he would pursue while running for Office) Pelosi wants firearms to be registered. While is may be political suicide for some int he more rural States it is still something the Libs want to go through.



Also, all this crazy talk about President Obama taking away guns means absolutely nothing. Obama is not stupid and he definitely does not want to deal with a gun debate while dealing with more important things. People also forget that Obama, like any other president, has a set time for how long they are in power, so people really need to tone down with all the nightmarish scenarios.

His track record speaks for itself, that along with those that funded his campaign and the bills I'm sure he will try and fast track through.



I hated it when the far left and other liberals did it to Bush and I won't stand for it now.

The difference is, the Right are by nature support the 2nd where as those on the left would prefer to remove it from the BoRs.

[cascade]

ACORN has commited the worst case of voter fruad in the history of my state, yet they still operate freely with tax payer money. And now they will be conducting census reports WTF!

[Hot Lips]

While they may harp on about the Right meeting them half way, they never return the favour.

What gun control "favor" was given by the "Right" with an agreement that the "Left" would reciprocate on something else and didn't deliver?


The difference is, the Right are by nature support the 2nd where as those on the left would prefer to remove it from the BoRs.

It might be more accurate to say that more Republicans than Democrats oppose gun control, but neither side "naturally" supports the 2nd amendment nor do Democrats "naturally" want to remove the 2nd Amendment from the bill of rights.

I recall reading exit polls that indicated 40% of households with guns voted the Democratic ticket in more recent elections. Add to that the fact that not owning a gun doesn't mean you oppose the 2nd Amendment.

[Geezah]

What gun control "favor" was given by the "Right" with an agreement that the "Left" would reciprocate on something else and didn't deliver?

Bad choice of words on my part I guess, as it went completely over your head. It was not meant literally.

But the FOPA would be a fine example of this, it was pushed to make it easier for lawful firearm owners to transport their arms, but at the 11th hour an anti-gunite added a poison pill. That created Transferable and Post Sample Class III. There was no need for it, as there was no issue to begin with.
Every thing that has gone in the firearms rights direction over the last few years has met with interference from the Left(with no indication of a compromise), when it is something pushed by the Left, they want the Right to meet them in middle and not offer up any type of interference.

You yourself have suggested meeting half way on gun control issues.



It might be more accurate to say that more Republicans than Democrats oppose gun control, but neither side "naturally" supports the 2nd amendment nor do Democrats "naturally" want to remove the 2nd Amendment from the bill of rights.

I have a letter from Rep Dave Hobson and Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele saying otherwise.

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

There are others that think like her, Schumer, Boxer and Clinton come to mind, but we don't see this coming from the Right.




I recall reading exit polls that indicated 40% of households with guns voted the Democratic ticket in more recent elections. Add to that the fact that not owning a gun doesn't mean you oppose the 2nd Amendment.

Do you have a link to that?

[Panchito12]

ACORN & Obama can say all they want, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller supporting the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. ACORN & Obama, and the Democracts, want to F with that then good luck trying to overturn an Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

ODDS: 100% against ACORN/OBAMA

[Hot Lips]

But the FOPA would be a fine example of this...

I guess I'm not seeing the "favor" part.



You yourself have suggested meeting half way on gun control issues.

And I feel that I personally do have a stance that is between two extremes. Whereas you continue to portray things in left/right, all/none, strictly for/strictly against terms. One extreme or the other.




I have a letter from Rep Dave Hobson and Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele saying otherwise.

So, you have a letter from a single Republican as proof that Republicans in general "naturally" support the 2nd Amendment and Democrats in general "naturally" want it removed from the Bill of Right. :roll:

I have no doubt there are some on either side.


Do you have a link to that?

LOL - I'll have to dig. Here's one exit poll comparison (al beit from a blog (http://observationalism.com/2008/11/09/selected-exit-poll-comparisons-2000-2004-2008/)).



VOTERS WITH GUN OWNER IN HOUSEHOLD
http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=166x150&chd=t:61,36,2&cht=p&chtt=2000&chco=ff3300,3333cc,66cc00&chl=61|36|2http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=166x150&chd=t:63,36,1&cht=p&chtt=2004&chco=ff3300,3333cc,66cc00&chl=63|36|1http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=166x150&chd=t:62,37&cht=p&chtt=2008&chco=ff3300,3333cc&chl=62|37
Share of voters: 48% in 2000; 41% in 2004; 42% in 2008.
Almost a mirror image of the vote of union households. Here, too, remarkable stability across the years, just with the proportions in reverse. The Democratic candidate got 36-37% in three consecutive elections. Since overall, Obama got 4% more than Gore and Kerry, the fact that he got just 1% more among gun owning households means that he underperformed slightly. But he still got over a third of them, despite the whole controversy about bitter Pennsylvanians clinging to their guns.

[NineLine]

I ****ing love my guns.

[Holmes85]

Though what would be the possible reaction among Americans if gun ownership was taken away?

[Arnie100]

Personally, I think that ACORN should be investigated. Will they be? No!

[Hot Lips]

Though what would be the possible reaction among Americans if gun ownership was taken away?

Outright? Not going to happen. American's will be able to own some firearms.

[Holmes85]

It's just a Hypothetical question. For example I live in Wisconsin and know a few people who would flee into the woods and rebel rather than surrender their guns.

[IMTT]

Comrade Obama will make it all OK, everything will be fine and well. Don't resist for to do so is futile. ACORN is sanctioned by the our great father and leader Barrack. Please all stand and sing... No one will take your guns, freedom or speech, money, bill of rights, just relax it will be all ok. Besides our great compassionate leader in Washington knows exactly what is good for you even if you don't agree.

[XShipRider]

Outright? Not going to happen. American's will be able to own some firearms.

It's the piecemeal legislation which will eventually erode away Consitutional liberties. I'm quite sure that's the intent of the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

[Geezah]

I guess I'm not seeing the "favor" part.

You must be tired as you must of missed this?


Bad choice of words on my part I guess, as it went completely over your head. It was not meant literally.




And I feel that I personally do have a stance that is between two extremes. Whereas you continue to portray things in left/right, all/none, strictly for/strictly against terms. One extreme or the other.

The Right want things left alone, the Left want to hinder or heavily restrict the 2nd, but because the Right do not want to meet them half way we are the extremists.

Why not support enforcement of laws that are on the books to prosecute those that commit crimes with firearms, rather than try and restrict further or ban firearms?




So, you have a letter from a single Republican as proof that Republicans in general "naturally" support the 2nd Amendment and Democrats in general "naturally" want it removed from the Bill of Right. :roll:

Two actually, my old Rep and Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I got a letter back from Sherrod Brown but it was some bs that didn't even address my concerns just talked about commom sense gun control.




I have no doubt there are some on either side.


NO doubt, I know that Taft was a Rhino, and Dewine and Voinovich both come across as Rhino's, but that's why I voted for Blackwell as Governor.

You do find that the majority of those on the Rights fully support the 2nd, where as the majority of those on the Left support gun control.





LOL - I'll have to dig. Here's one exit poll comparison (al beit from a blog (http://observationalism.com/2008/11/09/selected-exit-poll-comparisons-2000-2004-2008/)).


I scrolled down the link but couldn' find any reference to firearms in the household.

[Geezah]

Outright? Not going to happen. American's will be able to own some firearms.

That says it all for me, your extreme, where as I support leaving the 2nd alone.

[Hot Lips]

The Right want things left alone, the Left want to hinder or heavily restrict the 2nd, but because the Right do not want to meet them half way we are the extremists.

That's your us/them perspective. Most of us realize that not all Republicans are extremists. Not all Democrats are extremists. And gun owners/supporters exist on both sides.



That says it all for me, your extreme, where as I support leaving the 2nd alone.

rofl Geezah, I've come to realize that anyone that isn't 100% with you, in your eyes, is 100% against you. It's just your way.


When the Supreme Court says the 2nd equates to unlimited, unregulated access to any weapons man can create then the above statement won't be accurate. As it stands, you can own some firearms, but not all and not at will. I believe that's how things will stay.

There have been gun laws in various states since the 2nd was first written, no?


You do find that the majority of those on the Rights fully support the 2nd, where as the majority of those on the Left support gun control

That's what I said earlier. Which is not the same as saying the left wants the 2nd removed from the Bill of Rights. Gun control isn't anti-gun.

[Geezah]

That's your us/them perspective. Most of us realize that not all Republicans are extremists. Not all Democrats are extremists.

But I would be considered an extremist in your eyes as I do nto want any further restrictions imposed on the law abiding?



And gun owners/supporters exist on both sides.

They must do, after all since Obama has got in the spike in firearms in the last quarter of last year went through the roof along with ammo, which is pretty scarce.

I would say that there are those on the left that do not trust Obama and his cronies.






Outright? Not going to happen. American's will be able to own some firearms.

That says it all for me, your extreme, where as I support leaving the 2nd alone.

rofl Geezah, I've come to realize that anyone that isn't 100% with you, in your eyes, is 100% against you. It's just your way.

At what point do YOU say enough is enough, as far as the limitations go towards firearm ownership for the law abiding?

Do you base your need for restrictions on cosmetics?

Why do YOU feel there is a need to impose any more restrictions or bans, why not enforce laws that are currently on the books?




There have been gun laws in various states since the 2nd was first written, no?

Yes, there have.

Cleveland, Columbus Cinnci and Dayton all had home rule until it was struck down in Ohio. They even tried to continue to enforce these laws after the fact, but were shot down.





That's what I said earlier. Which is not the same as saying the left wants the 2nd removed from the Bill of Rights. Gun control isn't anti-gun.

Then what is it?

Should I be considered being in favour of gun control as I want the laws on the books to be enforced?
Is that what you want, or do you believe that there are other firearms that do not need to be in the hands of the law abiding?

[Hot Lips]

But I would be considered an extremist in your eyes as I do nto want any further restrictions imposed on the law abiding?

Do you merely want to avoid further restrictions? Or do you also seek to campaign to make existing laws more and more lax?

How do you define law abiding? Joel Atkin (the guy in Erie who shot a vet for yelling 'slow down' as he sped through the neighborhood) wasn't exactly law abiding. Neither was Joshua Cartwright (the guy who killed two police officers when they came to pick up at a gun range after one of many domestic disputes). Or the guy who pulled a gun on cops for fear that they were there to take his guns... until they convinced him they were just there to protect him from the three legged trolls he told 911 were attacking his home. Each one and many more like them using legally acquired weapons and two with concealled carries.



I would say that there are those on the left that do not trust Obama and his cronies.

You say that like it's news. They are politicians afterall.


At what point do YOU say enough is enough, as far as the limitations go towards firearm ownership for the law abiding?

We've discussed that. I'm in favor of finding ways to help law enforcement enforce the law. Unfortunately that is met with opposition from those that fancy themselves citizen-cops or think cooperating with law enforcement will play into some vast federal conspiracy to strip them of their weapons. Something I think is irrational from anyone that purchases and uses their firearms within the law and understand how many average citizens and gun owners also work in the government, in the military, in law enforcement, etc who wouldn't mindlessly fall in line with such a conspiracy.



Yes, there have.

Cleveland, Columbus Cinnci and Dayton all had home rule until it was struck down in Ohio. They even tried to continue to enforce these laws after the fact, but were shot down.

And there have been/are others. Do you think the Supreme Court will tell State leaders their hands are tied and that gun ownership will be a national free for all? I think it's telling that they've avoided addressing that for so long.

Even if they did that, and I doubt they will, they will regulate supplies, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, wholesalers, etc.... no?

[Geezah]

Do you merely want to avoid further restrictions? Or do you also seek to campaign to make existing laws more and more lax?

I do not want feel good laws put in place. I would say there are enough laws ont he books to take care of business, but as mentioned this does not help the libs from their goal which is to remove the 2nd.



How do you define law abiding? Joel Atkin (the guy in Erie who shot a vet for yelling 'slow down' as he sped through the neighborhood) wasn't exactly law abiding. Neither was Joshua Cartwright (the guy who killed two police officers when they came to pick up at a gun range after one of many domestic disputes). Or the guy who pulled a gun on cops for fear that they were there to take his guns... until they convinced him they were just there to protect him from the three legged trolls he told 911 were attacking his home. Each one and many more like them using legally acquired weapons and two with concealled carries.

So what would you suggest, short of outlawing firearms completely?

With freedom comes some risks, and while I do not condine what took place, I prefer this over the idea of a welfare state that would have us believe it can protect us from all things evil. I've experienced that side of life and it sucks.




You say that like it's news. They are politicians afterall.

And I would say this has a great affect on firearm sales as I would wager this is the only thing booming given the current economic state of affairs.



We've discussed that. I'm in favor of finding ways to help law enforcement enforce the law.

OK, that works for me.



Unfortunately that is met with opposition from those that fancy themselves citizen-cops

Please explain, are you refering to CCW?

Do you really believe that is hundreds of thousands choose to carry on a daily basis?

Do you really believe that is why LEOs teach CCW classes?



or think cooperating with law enforcement will play into some vast federal conspiracy to strip them of their weapons.

Please explain, are you talking about registration?



Something I think is irrational from anyone that purchases and uses their firearms within the law and understand how many average citizens and gun owners also work in the government, in the military, in law enforcement, etc who wouldn't mindlessly fall in line with such a conspiracy.

PLease go on....




And there have been/are others.

And alot of those are being dealt with now, as they are over the top.



Do you think the Supreme Court will tell State leaders their hands are tied and that gun ownership will be a national free for all? I think it's telling that they've avoided addressing that for so long.

Free for all, do you really believe that 80million+ law abiding citizens that choose to own firearms will all of a sudden go nuts?

[Hot Lips]

but as mentioned this does not help the libs from their goal which is to remove the 2nd.

Back to that again... who is trying to have the 2nd removed exactly?

(the rest we've discussed ad nauseam in other threads)






.

[Jobu]

Back to that again... who is trying to have the 2nd removed exactly?

(the rest we've discussed ad nauseam in other threads)

.



There have been countless articles and arguments made about how the 2nd amendment is "outdated" by Democrats whether it be professors, editorial writers, etc.

A simple google search for - 2nd amendment outdated - turns up no shortage of examples.

[Hot Lips]

Outdated as in "the language needs to be updated" is not the same as "wants it removed from the Bill of Rights" - which is what I was questioning.

[Dan2004]

Outdated as in "the language needs to be updated" is not the same as "wants it removed from the Bill of Rights" - which is what I was questioning.

Ok then, how do you think the language should be "updated?"

[Hot Lips]

That's not what my post said. That's what the search results suggested yielded, which was not an answer to the question posed regarding who exactly is trying to have the 2nd removed from the Bill of Rights. Something being credited to "libs" and "the left" which includes gun owners and people who live with and/or support gun owners.

Does it makes sense to pretend they don't exist or to potentially ostracize them with inaccurate generalizations? Don't you guys get tired of the us vs. them, right vs. left rhetoric that political entertainers and politicians feed to soundbyte consumers for self serving reasons?

[Geezah]

That's not what my post said. That's what the search results suggested yielded, which was not an answer to the question posed regarding who exactly is trying to have the 2nd removed from the Bill of Rights. Something being credited to "libs" and "the left" which includes gun owners and people who live with and/or support gun owners.

Does it makes sense to pretend they don't exist or to potentially ostracize them with inaccurate generalizations? Don't you guys get tired of the us vs. them, right vs. left rhetoric that political entertainers and politicians feed to soundbyte consumers for self serving reasons?

What was FOPA, what was the ASSault Weapon Ban, what was the DC ban, what is the ban in California other than a direct assault on the 2nd Amendment?
When does it stop, there is ban after ban restriction after restriction and it is nothing more than death by a thousand cuts.
They did it in the UK, why can't groups like IANSA who have tried and failed to push through theirs restriction over here but succeeded on Australia continue to attack our 2nd Am.

Let's not forget HR45 which is curently flying under the radar.

While you try and argue the point, you are either blind to their antics, agree with what they are pushing or are clueless on the subject.

[notherhen40]

Any thoughts of Gun Control during the next 2 years is dead on arrival. Just move on folks, nothing to see here.

Might be dead on arrival, but 4 years down the road if this fool wins re-election, this issue just might fly.

[notherhen40]

Getting this train wreck back on track.....2d admenment or not, we the people are ever sosurrendering away our rights, and we feed into the hype of groups like ACORN, or what ever new fringe group wants to impose its will upon us citizens of the United States. And agreeing with these fringe groups, is just as dangerous as firing the first shot of an actual crime.

A national police force as big and as powerful as the military....why not let the military do its job, protecting America's shores, and land from all enemies forgein or domestic, and start limiting the power of law enforcement.....includung those politicians who want a powerful police force...because law enforcement is one thing, but imposing will and uneeded laws is another.

[CamoDeafie]

A national police force as big and as powerful as the military....why not let the military do its job, protecting America's shores, and land from all enemies forgein or domestic, and start limiting the power of law enforcement.....includung those politicians who want a powerful police force...because law enforcement is one thing, but imposing will and uneeded laws is another.
because by law, police enforce CIVIL law.....and the MILITARY is subservient to the CIVIL government....by law again, Police forces are NOT military, they are CIVILIANs with JOBS...paid by taxpayers money, but JOBs nonetheless. our Military is also a paying profession, but it is also subject to the military code of conduct, set forth by the CONGRESS, whereas the POLICE have their own conduct set forth by the JUDICAL branch.....as a check/balance to the military rule. the one thing IS, I think the Police force nationally, and all the way down to cities, should be investigated and redone to the point where we'd have less corruption, less lax officers, less quotas of sorts....no shortage of abuses done by police officers who feel they are above the law, and frankly the fact we dont exactly have the teeth in the FBI or IA to ACTIVELY enforce the law upon those who enforces the law... is worrisome to me. also worrisome to me is the fact that ACORN is already being investigated, but they are still operating on public money, I for one think they should be placed on unpaid suspension until the investigations are over and until we either disband them or jail them or sue them.
I would very much prefer that the police force be around, reformed would be wonderful, and not be subjected to martial law....