obama’s anti-gun campaign has already started

Posted by antipaucity on November 10, 2008

“After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby.”

For anyone who actually believed this man, he’s living proof he’s a liar.

For more information: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4227

Last modified on November 11, 2008

Categories: commentary, news, politics
5 Comments »

« | Home | »

  • http://pebkac.homelinux.net Cristóbal Palmer

    The change.gov link is 404′d. Would you mind linking to something that backs up your point? I think it’s a bit early to be calling Obama a liar on guns, especially without a working link.

  • http://planet.trilug.org/ Tanner Lovelace

    As Cristóbal said, your link is 404. But, I’d just like to request that you stop the ad hominem attacks. Your blog is syndicated at Planet TriLUG as per your request, but I think you’re getting a bit incendiary for that. I really do not want to yank it from there.

    So, please, really. (For the record, the part of this post that bothers me the most is the ad hominem attack that is your second paragraph. Everything else, although I strongly disagree with, I have no problem with being on Planet TriLUG.)

  • http://warrenmyers.com antipaucity

    Good to see the links have been moving around. Apparently they meant it when they registered “change.gov” That page has been taken down, and the now-fixed link points to a PDF of the Google-cached edition. See page 4 of that PDF.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that facts cannot be construed as “ad hominem”. See wikipedia’s entry or the one from Dictionary.com.

    If there can be Obama fans syndicated, then it’s merely fair to have other viewpoints syndicated, too.

    Please do feel free to disagree with me, but not on facts, only on conclusions drawn from them :)

  • http://planet.trilug.org/ Tanner Lovelace

    “If there can be Obama fans syndicated, then it’s merely fair to have other viewpoints syndicated, too.”

    I completely agree, which is why I tried to limit my criticism to the one single sentence which I thought was an ad hominem attack. Your link to the definition says one of the definitions is:

    “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument”

    My suggestion was that by calling him a liar you were, in fact, attacking his character rather than answering his argument.

    BTW, Cristóbal pointed out to me that he thought this was the text you were concerned about:

    http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/#crime-and-law-enforcement

    That appears to be the verbiage that the NRA is concerned with. Since that has actually been on his campaign website for months, it is hardly fair to say that he’s just *now* unveiled this, is it?

  • http://warrenmyers.com antipaucity

    The message I had seen on his campaign website, and that he had been portraying in interviews, seemed to indicate that he would do nothing to make gun purchasing or ownership more difficult – which would make the most recent statement a contradiction of that, which would be a change in stance. Without a qualifying statement of *why* the change was made, it sounds like a lie – hence my claim.

    Since he made no argument for his change, merely made a change, then it makes one of them wrong. Since there was no argument (that I found) to speak to, bringing out what was apparently a simple lie seems to be honest on my part.

    If, in fact, I just missed it, then that’s fine – and I’d happily change my wording. I still have a huge problem with this personally, and will complain, however :)