CHILLICOTHE, Ohio - Gov. Ted Strickland on Friday sought to allay concerns of gun owners in his state who fear Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would push for greater restrictions on firearms.
“There is probably no governor, I would say, in the United States of America, who has a stronger, better record in the support of the Second Amendment than does Governor Ted Strickland and I’m proud of that,” Strickland told a rally in Chillicothe as he warmed up the crowd ahead of a speech by Obama.
Strickland, whose battleground state is a focus of intensive campaigning by Obama and Republican John McCain, said he spoke directly to Obama about the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.
“If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama,” the Democratic governor said at a rally in the rural southern part of his state.
In June, after the Supreme Court struck down a strict gun control law in Washington, Obama said he supports the Second Amendment protection.
But he also added that he identifies with some living in inner cities who seek “common sense, effective safety measures” to try reduce gun violence in crime-ravaged communities.
In April, Obama’s comments to a closed-door fund-raiser in San Francisco saying small town voters would “cling” to their guns and religion because they were “bitter” over their economic conditions caused a storm of criticism.
McCain endeared himself to Americans in favor of the right to bear arms by picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who enjoys hunting and who, according to former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, knows how to “field-dress a moose.”
Palin might differ with Strickland on which governor is a bigger champion of the Second Amendment.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
- Photo credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi (Guns are seen inside a display case at the Cabela’s store in Fort Worth, Texas June 26, 2008)
Trackback
27 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Its frankly amazing that so many fools still “reason” that by removing guns from lawful & law-abiding owners, it will somehow miraculously take guns out of criminals hands.
Its just so incredibly illogical - the criminals dont obey the existing 28,000 laws now - why would new laws change this fact?
Bluesky74 - To suggest that gun owners are weak & obsessed is absurd and just plainly naive. Those “11,000″ murders breakdown into many catagories incl. gang wars, police actions and legal self-defense.
I wonder how you plan to protect your family in a home invasion? Calling 911 and expecting the cops to arrive in time to save you, your wife or daughter from being raped or killed is just so idiotic that it defies your own intelligence. You know they wont get there in time. Hell, you could still be hold when the first family member is killed.
In case you are not aware, ownership falls into 3 main catagories - Sporting, Collecting and Self-Defense. The first 2 covers the 3rd. A semi-auto 9mm in the form of pistol, rifle or even UZI carbine is still a 9mm firearm. Just because its black (& ugly to some) and doesnot have pretty wood finishes does not change this fact. Banning a particular shape or style of gun is like banning a GM car becaused its painted black and has no wood trim.
That you dont want to own a gun is fine by me - just dont ram your gun paranoia down my throat.
Oneday you may need a gun to save your family from a 300lb thug with a knife in your home at 2am - lets hope you did not get them all banned before this. This happens at least 6000 times a day somewhere in America where a gun is used lawfully to protect self and families - otherwise it could be 6000 extra bodies added to the gun death statistcs.
- Posted by BRAD3000[quote]The real issue is NOT guns!
It is the elephant-in-the-room issue of Obama’s skin color. This issue is petty yet drawn big by mendacity and hyppcrisy.
If the American people do not wish to be dismissed as a load of facile reactionaries they NEED to stop being racists and start acting like mature voters.
If they cannot overcome their own inate prejudice then America may be doomed.
Ignomy, failure and a rapid decline in influence will await an America that rejects people on the skin tone issue.
It is that serious people![/quote]
So your saying if we don’t vote for Obama we’re racists? Yeah keeping running with that thought :rolleyes:
I’m more concerned with the prospect of very liberal SC justices being appointed during an Obama term than direct gun control measures.
- Posted by CoyoteThe real issue is NOT guns!
It is the elephant-in-the-room issue of Obama’s skin color. This issue is petty yet drawn big by mendacity and hyppcrisy.
If the American people do not wish to be dismissed as a load of facile reactionaries they NEED to stop being racists and start acting like mature voters.
If they cannot overcome their own inate prejudice then America may be doomed.
Ignomy, failure and a rapid decline in influence will await an America that rejects people on the skin tone issue.
It is that serious people!
- Posted by TheTruthIs...Doesn’t ‘C4′, above, make a chilling, indisputable point? Do you remember the two druggies who invaded the doctor’s Connecticut home, raped his wife and two daughters, tied them to their beds - then burned them alive?
Many of us will never forget that abomination.
How would the messiah prevent that? By calling 911?
One gun-control stooge, above, claims guns ‘lead to crime, etc. etc.’?
Why do you think we’re all sufficiently stupid so as to believe that lie?
Isn’t that a jailhouse lawyers’ defense?
“Like, uh, if the gun wasn’t in my hand like, uh, I wouldn’a shot him…’?
Spare us your communist lies.
Guns do not equal crime. Guns do not cause crime. The past twenty five years of defeat for gun bans prove that gun control causes crime by shifting the balance of power to criminals.
Gun freedom laws enacted during the passed twenty five years reduced crime by creating the fear among criminals that citizens can now fight back - and no cynical pol can factually contradict that.
Do the Ohio governor’s statements seem incongruent? Why do they smell like soviet propaganda?
Because one candidate’s voting record is the most anti-gun, pro-thug record in congress. Because one candidate declared that he will confiscate all firearms - except those in the hands of useful thugs - and end States Rights when he implements federal rules outlawing concealed carry laws.
As if erasing the Second Ammendment isn’t bad enough, this messianic figure in the same breath told citizens that States’ Rights mean nothing to him.
Neither, apparently, does human life - provided it’s innocent.
Sometimes, the cruelest outcome occurs when useful dupes to get that which they demand.
As for the rest of us, best hang on and seek our Creator, while he may yet be found.
Paul Vincent Zecchino
- Posted by paul vincent zecchinoManasota Key, Florida
11 October, 2008
“so before you guys scream about your so called constitutional rights, you should remember that you people are aiding criminal behavior in this country”
Only criminals are responsible for criminal behavior, not constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. You would like to render the law abiding defenseless and tie the hands of the police so they can’t search known criminals on the street for guns unless they have already committed a crime. Typical Marxist, leftist Democrat thinking.
- Posted by The Whole TruthNot worried about them taking away your gun. Take a look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Thieves had guns but law abiding citizens were arrested for having them.
- Posted by C WalkerGun regulation should not be needed. Gun manufacturing regulations are another matter. Regulate what can be produced, imported, etc… and there is NO PROBLEM “banning” a weapon that is not produced in the first place.
- Posted by Bob StoneTo believe that one side or the other will steal or protect your rights is naive. They each do what is expedient. Currently this administration believes it is expedient to take your right to privacy away. The Last administration thought hand guns and assault rifles was a way to get and keep voters. There are people out there that think the Police are here to “protect” them but, numerous court decisions prove them wrong. If the responsibility to protect ourselves ultimately falls upon ourselves the right to carry firearms must be maintained. Now there will always be room to debate whether a citizenry has the “right” to be as well armed as the nations military. In reality that is what the second amendment was addressing but, one has to understand the times to get that point. For example, there was no question about handguns. Of course you own and carry hand guns. The question was whether you could own guns of war, for a militia, to protect your state,…long guns (rifles and muskets) and that was spelled out in the 2nd amendment. In today’s society that would mean all those assault weapons they want to ban. If you do not understand the society in which this document was written and try to interpret it based purely on today’s society you will most likely misunderstand what our Forefathers were getting at.
So, are there people out there trying to take our rights away? Of course there are. Our rights are a pain in the ass for governments from law enforcement all the way up to our judiciary, from the Executive branch to the Congress, from intelligence gathering to commerce. And the most basic right is the right to protect ourselves so, I have the right to carry a hand gun and I should not have to get a license or anything else. There should be no laws restricting or granting this basic right. Vermont enjoys the 49th lowest crime rate in the nation and the only laws they have on the books has to do with underage possession and purchase. As for suicide rates…if you want to kill yourself I think you can find a way gun or not and it is a logic flaw to include such a statistic in this discussion.
If you think the Republicans would not steal your rights regarding firearms just remember they will do what they think is expedient to their agenda. If your state does not have amendments in your constitution detailing the protection of your rights regarding firearms, you are not protected.
- Posted by CWL54“geek” is wrong, I’m afraid. Our 2nd Amendment right IS in danger. With a Democratic president able to appoint Supreme Court justices (possibly 2 during his presidency), the chances that he would appoint judges who hold his liberal and socialistic views (see Ruth Bader Ginsberg)and that would leave the recent ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies to INDIVIDUALS open to re-interpretation (eg: well-regulated militia = National Guard). Constitutional rights are a fragile thing, especially in the hands of someone who wants what THEY believe is best for the rest of us; look at Waco, at the Elian Gonzalez debacle, at President Clinton asking Janet Reno to find some way around the Constitution in order to enact his decision to forbid firearm ownership to citizens living in government housing, or the previous administration’s idiocy at Ruby Ridge. Loss of freedom is one pen stroke away.
- Posted by WalterTo all those antigun nuts who dont believe in defending their families or them selves..there is a doctor in Ct. who became the ETERNAL UNARMED VICTIM when hr lost his wife and two daughters to the scum that are always hunting new targets. He didnt believe in guns for self defense before the slaughter and never, ever, thought something so terrible would happen to him and his…surprise!!
- Posted by C4The FACTS are that Obama HAS consistently advocated laws which “take away guns” - bans on handguns, bans on certain types of long guns he calls “assault weapons” which are most commonly used for target shooting and hunting. Just because some voters are too ignorant about firearms and resent those who own them does not change the reality that about 5,000 innocent civilians per DAY are killed by their own police and government - and that genocide is a phenomenon exclusively limited to nations which registered guns “to control crime” then eventually banned “military style” weapons, then ALL weapons. Obama and the Ohio governor can tell lies on television and gun-hating voters will cheer, but the truth is not what they are claiming.
- Posted by AJMDI believe that the writers of our constitution intended for the right to bear arms to be the last check and balance of the government. If the government chose to descend into tyranny, then we as an armed populace then have the means to do something about it. Too, the second amendment was also a acknowledgement to reality of the very real challenges that our nation faced at that time.
- Posted by John HWith that said, I remain firmly in favor of the second amendment. However, I take issue with those who foment a paranoid fear that just because somebody talks of restricting the more extreme examples of the gunsmith’s craft, that he intend to “take away our guns.”
I am surprised that every law enforcement agency is not howling for tight restrictions and yes, bans on assault guns. It must be very demoralizing for them to be in a deadly fire situation only to find out that they are out-gunned by the criminal elements.
Think about it, as adults, we have a driver’s license. Just because we are able to drive a car, does that automatically mean that we are entitled to drive an M1 Abrams on our streets and highways? We do not feverishly protest the need for a driver’s license with endorsements based upon the different vehicle types that we are qualified to operate. We do not raise a ruckus because all forms of conveyance, car, truck, bus, boat and train need to be registered and licensed.Why then is there such protest when the subject of licensing and registration of firearms is mentioned?
Senator Obama does not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. Even if he wanted to, he is cognizant enough to realize political suicide when it stares him in the face. However, he correctly wants to rid the streets of assault-type weaponry, which has no place anywhere or at any time.
All I can say is when it comes to gun control…..NEVER trust a Democrat! Democrats always say the Police will protect you, but it seems that the Police always arrive just in time to tag your toe. As for the second amendment….the Democrats hate it because as long as the public is armed they cannot force a big brother society. Democrats are evil liars no better then the Communist brothern they come from.
- Posted by AlexFor perspective, car accidents kill 60K/year. Our Constitution restrains government and provides Americans the tools to preserve liberty. Sadly, we no longer have a government that responds to our voices as corporations now call the shots knowing that unarmed people are most easily oppressed and enslaved. The day we give up our arms, we are no longer America. We are one moment away from being like the slaves mining coaltan in the Congo, or working in sweatshops in China. Those that would give up their arms are not free men and women and certainly deserve the fate that awaits those that don’t value liberty.
- Posted by BullOne thing that really amazes me is the fact that our country seems to have a lot of people who are obsessed with owning guns.
- Posted by bluesky74Don’t these “weak” people have better thing to be worried other than owning firearms?
I don’t own firearms, and I will like to see someday when private handgun ownership is totally outlawed, and all hunting related rifles registered with ATF.
AR-15, AK-47, and Uzi type assult weapons (weapons for fighting wars) should be banned for civilians.
By the way, gun owners’ so called constitutional right directly leads to 11,000 murders a year and over 20,000 suicides a year, so before you guys scream about your so called constitutional rights, you should remember that you people are aiding criminal behavior in this country.
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?
- Posted by CCW4ME2Strickland thinks we are all fools and Obama is a liar when he says he supports the Second Amendment and believes that it is an individual right. The messiah’s record contradicts his campaign rhetoric. Liars, both of them.
- Posted by BobI agree with Governor Strickland that Obama is not going to take away our pistols and rifles but do wish that Democrats would just permanently drop the gun control issue. Fortunately, we have a recent Supreme Court decision that protects our right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws are simply ineffective as they influence only the law-abiding population not the criminal element.
Supporting restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms is bad politics too. I will vote for Obama on the basis of economic issues, however, it is important to Democrats to take a stronger position in support of gun rights. Democrats are not going to build a long-term governing majority unless this issue can be neutralized.
- Posted by RDFor years the Republican Party has painted every Democrat as if they were anti gun.
The Republicans have used the NRA to promote fear among their members.
It would be nice if the gun advocates were to read the constitution that they hold so dear and defend their right to bear arms.
It is the same framework that explains the 3 branches of government and how they work.
If John Mc Cain were to President and both the House and Senate ran amuck with some gun control law (NOT A CHANCE THAT WOULD HAPPEN). There is still the supreme court to get around.
The bottom line is for far too long the Republican Party has chosen to use fear to bully there way into office and scare gun owners into giving money to the NRA and then buying support in the Congress that would exist anyways.
The right to bear Arms will continue to exist and all that the pro gun people are doing is using that issue to attack any Democrat . It is foolish
- Posted by geekYeah this is true, we have nothing to fear…
Except the reinstitution of the failed “assault weapons ban”, the loss of our right to carry and the inaliable right to self preservation, all of which mr oboma has vowed to ensure law abiding Americans see taken away from them.
When we enact laws only criminals will break them. When we outlaw guns, of any kind, only criminals will have them. I along with every gun owner I know, are willing to give up our guns if you can guarantee that all others will be destroyed and that there will never be another produced.
Do let us know when that happens because until then the bad guys will always have them.
Jay of Yuma, AZ
- Posted by Insurgo