Gun Rights Activists Take Issue With Gun Inquiry on Obama Administration Questionnaire

What is the big deal about the question?
I think the gun’s right activists are getting upset over nothing.

This is a case of vetting potential government employees. Some thing the Mcain campaign should have done to save themselves considerable embarrassment. If you don’t like the question, don’t answer it. Let the administration decide if its that importaant or not.If everything about your weapon is legal, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

The questionnaire asks about cars and driving offenses, too.
I’m waiting on the outrage from AAA.

It’s being taken out of context, the NRA and gun owners are only making sure that constitutional rights are not being violated and won’t be violated in the near future. Though they do seem to be making a big deal about it.

Stop scarin us with this loss of rights stuff jake. As Reilly says below, Whats the big deal about (your employer or government knowing) if you have a gun?
Get on the beat, others are reporting on the first familys puppy…don’t get left behind

I suppose that there would be a lot of flak if the new pres asked if anyone had had an abortion, because that right is ingrained in the constitution and not called out, special like, as the gun amendment is. Clearly the framers did it this way so that the right to “keep and …” would be easier to eliminate
Clearly all the history and background leading to the 2nd is unnecessary and over played in this new age

Give it up, you lost, he’s not taking away your guns.

when the FISA issue was ‘big’, people around here asked:’ if you have nothing to hide, what’s the big deal’?
same here right”:
if you’ve never killed anyone or committed a crime with a gun, you have nothing to be a afraid of,…what’s the big deal with the question?

Why would people get upset about the question? Maybe because of what has transpired during the course of history when other governments have pushed the gun control as well as gun registration issues.

A common thread among the statist-left appears to be that those who favor gun-rights are somehow paranoid. Let’s review some uncontested facts:
1. BO favors an expansion of the mis-named “assault weapons ban”…which would ban over half the long guns currently available to the civilian market.
2. In spite of any amount on Clintonian squirming, BO favors a total ban on the ownership of handguns (according to both answers on candidate questionnaires, and verifiable comments to colleagues at the U. of Chicago.)
3. BO has repeatedly expressed his support of Washington DC’s complete ban on the ownership of functional firearms, as well as the total handgun ban in Chicago (kind of like “supporting the first amendment”, but favoring a complete ban on political speech.)
Now you may agree or disagree with these positions, but to dismiss the concerns of the gun-rights community as “paranoia” is really just foolish—don’t you think?

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright 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 there.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein
“We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of a relentless legislative strategy. We are going to beat guns into submission.” Sen Charles Schumer
So, are we paranoid? Or they really out to get us?

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, jumps into the fray, saying, “I am deeply disturbed ….
- self realization is good
‘here is no reason to ask this question unless the Obama Administration plans to use it to discriminate based on lawful activity. For this reason, I will seek to enact legislation to prohibit this type of discrimination.”
- nothing like the paranoid/reactionary ‘right’
worrying about gun ‘discrimination’ and over reacting.. wanting to write laws for problems that are imaginary……

If it is true about all the threats that obama has received, and todate it is apparently more than any other potential president, or president elect, then it would be possible he is checking gun owners to see who might be the next perp that threatens him. In other words, if someone tries something, then they know who owns guns! And, besides, what would be the chances of your getting hired? The odds would be horrendously high against it….

Obama has a record of supporting gun bans and he lied to get gun owner votes. He will do everything he can to ban guns. Then we will be like other countries (UK) that banned guns and now have a HIGHER crime rate.
What is reasonable gun control? I say two hands. How about we lock up Criminals and forget about restricting rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is not Crime control

This seems like simple logic to me. I don’t understand what the discussion is about. We know two things.
1. Obama does not like guns. You can’t really argue with this one. Its well documented.
2. Employment questionnaires are used to determine suitability for employment. Therefore the question will be used to determine whether or not you get hired.
If you knew that your potential emplyer had tried to get dogs banned nation wide, and the job application asked if you owned a dog. Wouldn’t you assume answering “Yes” would weigh negatively on your prospects for employment?
Why are people saying “The question is only on there for ‘Ge Whiz’ purposes and has nothing to do with whether or not you get hired” Why would there be a question on the questionnaire that has no bearing on the subject?
I’m also not buying the “They are just checking to see if you are breaking any gun laws” explanation. It asks three things. Do you own a gun? Is it registered? Has the registration ever lapsed.
Owning a gun is not a crime. Not registering a gun is not a crime in all but a few locations. If you are not required to register a gun, then a lapse is not an issue. Therefore answering either Yes or No is irrelevant from a legal point of view. Therefore it is not about breaking laws. It is about whether you are doing something OB doesn’t like.

This is for “Question”
‘People owning guns and professing their rights to do so is like Iran professing its rights to own nuclear weapon; neither can be trusted to use it responsibly.’
Not sure where you came from but I really wish you would go back to where ever that might be!! As for the comment about those of us who own guns, I am a female who happems to own several. And also knows how to use them. I am an avid hunter but also use them for protection. Are they registered? The ones that are supposed to be, yes. That would be the pistols. As for the rifle and shotgun they are used for hunting prey and some us still eat the animals we hunt. And don’t even start with the redneck comments, they don’t work with me. I am educated and work in government. If at some point in time when I am in bed at night and I hear someone entering my home, should I jump out of bed and ask for them to wait for the cops to show up before they rape and murder me or do I just tell them to go ahead and get it over with? I understand that some people just do not like guns and I have no problem with this but the fact remanins that “gun control” only makes it more difficult for law abidding citizens to acquire this property not the criminals who wouldn’t go through the proper channels anyway. I hope for your sake you never have to worry about a criminal coming into your home. But I see the right to protect myself and property as a very important one. I will keep my guns ThankYou.

Kimmie
I don’t have any problems with gun owners or hunters………. all I ask is that they be accountable for their guns and what they do with them.
NRA is trolling for anger with their ‘outrage’

So why doesn’t the questionnaire ask about knives, baseball bats, pipes, rope or swimming pools? All are also deadly tools when used improperly. Why single out firearms when criminal proceedings are covered in another question? Why ask about registration when the vast majority of states have no registration? The simple answer is that President-elect Obama and his “team” have a bias against lawful gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense and collection.

“Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage”
“O” and his people cannot grasp that an object doesn’t “cause” injury or damage.
These folks are suspicious of inanimate objects?
“What’s the big deal?” Our RKBA is a basic human right – it’s none of “O”‘s business if an employee owns a gun.

Is it true that the questionnaire does not ask about illegal drug use? That would be interesting since BO admits that he used to used cocaine.

if you notice the questionnaire does not ask about
bazookas, SAM’s. RPG’s, artillery, napalm, phosphorous, etc.
Military surplus stores await your orders to keep you “safe’…….

Jenny Rome: I believe its call invading people’s privacy. That’s what happens when you think you voted for someone that was suppose to change Washington not rule the people. And don’t look for that change because it is not going to happen. I didn’t vote for him and even though McCain lost I feel that I voted for a better candidate and have no regrets. With McCain that application would never exist.

the comment about “O” is concerned about his safety,give me a break! You really think that someone intent on hiring on with him with ill intent would answer that question honestly? and yes BLUE,the N.R.A.may well be trolling for anger because there is a very dangerous anti-Second Amendment fish out there.

Ryan said: “I don’t have any problems with gun owners or hunters………. all I ask is that they be accountable for their guns and what they do with them.
NRA is trolling for anger with their ‘outrage’”
Well, Ryan, virtually all law-abiding gun owners and hunters are very accountable for what they do.
And those that don’t do the right thing, well, we law-abiding gun owners want to see them take responsibility and punishment under the law.
As for the NRA, I join them in their outrage because the question being asked by the Obama camp is intrusive.
The problem is that successful affronts to freedom occur gradually, so we must treat any small step towards an eventual ban as an attack against freedom because that is exactly what it is.

“Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage”
Many guns used in crimes are stolen. I assumed the question was phrased that way to include that sort of thing as well.
As for ‘Robin’ and ‘Sven Walinski’ – try reading Snopes.com and/or Obama’s books rather than relying on the latest ooh!ooh! email that’s sent to you.

Jenny
re: ‘Does anyone know if the results of President Elect Obama’s ‘
hmmm…I don’t seem to remember the publishing of ‘W’s drug and alcoholic escapades, and where were all those lost ‘reservist files’….

y’all need to sign up for ‘Red Dawn 2′..
you folks are pretty damn funny

ROBIN: I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!
************************************
Apparently, you BO bleeding- heart supporters have tuned a deaf ear to his words. This man,BO has stated in his book dislike for whites,(as has his wife),Has openly supported gun control,and, buy the way, also stated in his book that if things get bad he would strongly support his Muslim brothers. Now then what more do you need to know. This man is dangerous to our country and freedom !!
Posted by: Robin | Nov 17, 2008 11:49:17 AM

The question is an invasion of privacy and isn’t relevant to anything therefore, it should be removed from the application.

If it was not for Guns there would not be America. The young punk College Students who are communist liberals are
very un-educated on history when it comes to the issue of gun control.
Do you know the real history about Gun Controll ? Hitler + Gun Control=
The Holocost. Gun Control is Naziisem which explains why 88 % of Orothodox Jews in America are big time gun owners.

There is no reason for anyone to know if another person has a gun unless the person asking has plans on committing a crime against the person being asked; or the person asking has plans on taking the gun away from the person who foolishly admits to having one. It’ so strange. The criminals have known this for a very long time.
And, by the way, how are the people in BO’s civil army armed? Do they have guns? If they include any of those we’ve seen on TV lately, we already know they carry billy clubs.
Oh, I understand. He is going to have a private army but they are all going to be peaceful and loving and not carry weapons. Huh.
But then maybe that’s why the question. It’s a recruiting tool!

Ifthis “questionnaire” is for hireing, consider this. Why isn’t someone/anyone asking the President Elect’s staff this question? “Isn’t it safe to assume, that if these “potential hires” are going to be working with or near the President, that a complete “BACKGROUND CHECK” would/should be run on the afore mentioned “potential hires”. If this is true then wouldn’t the background checks uncover the questionnaires’ qustions anyway? Oh, by the way, as a former government employee…lieing on the questionnaire or background check questionnaire is aq crime in itself. HELLOOOOOOO!!!!! it’s called trying to conceal something you don’t want the employer to know. DUH!

Is Barry not an “EOE” employer? The left wingers amaze me at their stupidity. I learned in 3rd or 4th grade why the 2nd amendment is there. While lefties are dismantling the Constitution let’s hope they don’t pass legislation to force people to try the gay lifestyle.

Wow!
Does anybody own a knife or baseball bat?
Stupid irrelevant questions..

After reading all the posts it is difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than to realize that most of the people commenting on B.H.O.’s questionaire are motivated not by an investigation of the issues it raises, but by slogans, partisanship, insults and name-calling.
This is a constitutional issue, clear and simple. The Supreme Court of the United States says that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
No president-elect, and please let’s try to remember that he is not yet actually the president, has the right to ask anyone, applicant or otherwise, if they are exercising their constitutional rights. We all do that everyday. We should be protected while doing that. And to ask us if we are, is foolish, intrusive and threatening.
Attempts to make this question something other than what it is, are to build smoke screens to hide the man’s true intent, which is, in the case of Obama, to disarm America, as a nation and as individuals. Otherwise, what’s the point of everything he has said and done so far, in addition to what he is now doing?
The question has little to do with the NRA and nothing to do with owning a car, using drugs or with getting a job. It is an attack on constitutional rights. Obama intends to “run” this country in a direction that most of you, including those who voted for him, will not like!

The NRA hypes things up a bit for profits and to counterbalance how Obama downplays his anti-gun agenda. Us pro-gunners may seem paranoid, but that’s because he’s appointing people from the Clinton administration and he supposedly is in cahoots with the UN working towards US disarmament. In 1994 the Clinton admin. passed the “assault weapons” ban, and it took another ten years before a republican majority decided that was stupid, unpopular, and innefective. We don’t ask for much, really, just affordable ammo for our 30 round magazines and rifles that happen to look like machine guns.

the question by the team is a loaded question and is obviously biased as written.
Reality is nobody in their right mind would answer that question and in fact I myself would lie on that poll.
Same as exit polls, I never tell the truth to those who ask as it is nobody’s business but my own.

DUI CONVICTIONS vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:
Is the second amendment Right really an inalienable Right when the government eternally Debars the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on one’s drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions? (Felony) A Victimless Crime & Void of any injured party.
QUESTION: What prevents the government from debarring the peoples “second amendment right” based on acquiring 10 or more points on a driving record as they have for acquiring 3 drinking while driving convictions?
How can lawmakers remove an inalienable protected “Right” such as the Second Amendment rather than another protected right as free speech, choice of religion, speedy trial or right to counsel? (What does protected & inalienable mean?)
Driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely no relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms or to be secure in their homes regardless the number of DUI convictions.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
The government contends that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk factor to society and should therefore have their “Right” to keep and bear arms eternally debarred void of any chance of future restoration.
Shouldn’t the government first eternally debar (Remove) the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle before they debar (Remove) the drivers protected second amendment “Right” to posses a firearm void of reinstatement? (Think about this) Which removal would tend to save lives?
The government currently reinstates the drivers “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle, yet eternally & forever debars the drivers “Right” to ever own or possess a firearm for the exact same drinking & driving offense of 3 dui convictions. (HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE AND WHERE IS THE SOUND REASONING?)
Drunk drivers kill thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers protected “Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever. Yet the laws allow for reinstatement of the driving “Privilege” (which is not even a “Right”) and does not have the protections of a “Right” (Is the governments concern with saving lives or removing gun rights?
In Fact, Debarring the “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of any free man! Eternally debarring the right to possess a firearm has not saved a single life and utterly tramples upon our inalienable God given & Constitutionally protected rights of all free men!
THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT: (RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION)
The “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For 3 drinking & driving convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision for absolute & full reinstatement & restoration of the driving privilege.
The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A Right” and “is NOT a mere Privilege”:
For 3 drinking & driving convictions, this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement. (SHOULDN’T THIS BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE?)
Regardless of one’s personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for the guaranteed inalienable protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms as there is positive provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege of operating a motor vehicle for the exact same drinking & driving offense of 3 drinking & driving convictions. (Do you agree?)
This usurpation of the people’s second amendment right should unequivocally be re-evaluated with this clear & sound reasoning of facts. If this were not so, why wouldn’t the government eternally debar the privilege to the driver from ever operating a motor vehicle which would save countless lives instead of going after the removal of the second amendment right which has never saved even a single life?
Shouldn’t Constitutionally Protected Rights take front seat to a privilege?
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE & LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

Blue stated earlier,
“I think he has to be careful,if you received death threats all the time would want to hire people who are registered gun owners? He’s got to think of his family’s life and then his own.
I think it is one thing to want to protect your family from danger. It is another thing when that danger is following you around.”
Personally, I would WANT registered gun owners around me. They are generally trained and practiced in handling and discharging their firearms. They are also generally more cautious about the use of deadly force, because they realize that they can be held responsible for reckless use of that firearm.
It has been proven time and again that criminals are not going to register their weapons or follow the bans and such that law-abiding gun owners do. It has also been proven in many studies that criminals are less likely to attempt a criminal act if they believe that the person is likely to defend themselves. They will be less likely to break into a home in which they hear a dog barking and they are less likely to break the law if they reasonably believe that the homeowner may have a gun for self-defense.

No problem, just do what Obama does, Lie!