SEARCH
Trumka: Obama Strong on Guns, Conservation Issues |
|
 |
|
At a union roundtable discussion in Johnstown, Pa., yesterday, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka met with a panel of 15 union sportsmen from 12 different western Pennsylvania unions to discuss Sen. Barack Obama’s positions on issues ranging from trade to guns.
Trumka says Obama is offering the right solutions for what’s wrong with our economy. He told the assembled union members that talking with their friends and neighbors about Obama and the important issues is the best way to make sure we have a pro-worker president next year.
This election is going to decide the direction of the economy, where we go. Whether the economy is going to help you, or hurt you. Whether it’s going to be changed or it isn’t going to be changed. It’s up to you, it’s very, very important for you and for your future, the future of our communities and our children, to know the facts, where the candidates stand on the issues and then vote what’s best for the country.
Trumka, an avid hunter and fisher, says corporate interests will again seek to exploit the issue of gun ownership this year, hoping to distract gun-owning voters from real issues like jobs, health care and retirement security. This election is too important to let distortions and falsehood affect it, Trumka says.
Obama gets it. Not only is he crystal clear in his support of the Second Amendment, he is light years ahead of John McCain on habitat conservation and hunting and fishing access issues important to sportsmen. Attacks on Sen. Obama’s position on guns are nothing more than right-wing rhetoric meant to distract working people from the critical pocketbook issues that affect our daily lives.
Participants at the roundtable said that while protecting the traditions of sportsmen is important, the focus of this election is squarely on the economy.
Kenneth Peterson, president of IBEW Local 459 in Johnstown, said trade tops the issues leading him to vote for Obama this fall.
There is a lot of nonsense out there about Barack Obama taking our guns. Workers from our area are more worried about John McCain exporting our jobs.
Lisa Stark, a National Rifle Association member and organizer for the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees (NUHHCE), says the real threat to responsible gun ownership comes from the stagnation of workers’ paychecks.
The truth of the matter is that George W. Bush and his failed economic policies have taken away more guns from average Americans than any gun control law ever passed in the history of the United States. The economic policies of George Bush—which McCain supported 90 percent of the time—have turned pawn shops into gun shops because struggling workers have to hock their guns to pay their mortgages.
Michael Fedore, a member of the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers who grew up in New Castle, Pa., says he’s voting for Obama because all workers’ rights deserve respect.
We come from an area where schools close on the opening day of deer season. Hunting is a way of life for us and Barack Obama respects that. Sen. Obama also respects our rights to decent jobs that pay fair wages, health care and pension protection.
Pennsylvania will be a decisive state in this fall’s election, and union volunteers will be working hard to make sure every union member knows what issues are really at stake this year.
_____________________________________________
Paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education Political Contributions Committee, www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Want to know Obama’s REAL position on guns… not filtered through the union?
His real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what HE has SAID and DONE during his entire political career.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991
The NRA no longer qualifies as a credible source of unbiased information, particularly the NRA/ILA (Institute for Legislative Action). The ILA is the PAC fund of the NRA. I used to be a member of both organizations. I still have a plaque around here somewhere recognizing my dedication of service to them in nominating me into the “NRA Legion of Honor” by the 125th Anniversary Awards Committee. I know very well what those organizations were transformed into after Wayne LaPierre took over in 1991.
In 1995, former President George H. W. Bush resigned his lifelong membership in the NRA after LaPierre called federal firearms agents, who were involved in the Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco incidents, “jackbooted thugs.”
In 2000, LaPierre said President Bill Clinton tolerated a certain amount of violence and killing to strengthen the case for gun control and to score points for his Party. Charlton Heston, the then-president of the National Rifle Association, called LaPierre’s language “extreme rhetoric.” White House spokesman Joe Lockhart called it “really sick rhetoric, and it should be repudiated by anyone who hears it.” I agree.
In October 2006, LaPierre instituted weekly podcasts on the NRAnews.com website called “What They Didn’t Tell You Today.” Every weekday, LaPierre gives a short broadcast about HIS views, not the NRA member’s, on gun rights. There is no organization, that I am aware of, that provides adequate balance to his politically spun statements; nor debunks his outright lies.
Case in point; the first so-called “fact” at the link you provided states:
Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. -FALSE!!!
Click on this:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219
You will discover the Measure Title description reads:
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
In other words, he never voted to ALLOW reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry; rather, he voted AGAINST giving the firearms industry absolute immunity on civil actions that may ever be pursued by anyone including possibly an NRA member. Yea is to ALLOW; Nay is AGAINST. “Obama (D-IL), Nay”
Obama’s vote was politically spun into something that it CLEARLY was not. This is a tactic that the current NRA employs systematically and with frequency. They indoctrinate their members with half truths and whole lies. I could debunk all the other so-called “facts” utilizing rational logic but I don’t have the time and you wouldn’t read it, anyway. The ILA has been transformed into a contribution collector for the republican party, pure and simple. I remember back when Gore enjoyed a 98% scorecard rating from the NRA as a Senator, but that didn’t help him one bit at garnishing the NRA’s endorsement over Bush in 2000.
If you give money to the ILA and to your Union’s PAC, you’ve got money fighting money. Once I realized that, I quit the ILA. Later, I just allowed my NRA membership to lapse and asked to be put on their “do not call list.” The NRA used to be a respectable organization with a worthy mission. USED TO BE!
He is not crystal clear in supporting the Second Amendment, but he is in opposing it. He refused to sign the amicus brief which called for the DC ban to be overturned. Rather, he believed it to be constitutional while SCOTUS confirmed it was not. This is the opinion of a twelve-year professor of constitutional law having a degree from Harvard?! Of course, now his website says that he has ALWAYS believe the 2A to be an individual right.
The above article talks about sportsmen, hunters, etc; but it does not address the right to bear (carry) arms nor does it talk about those who keep (own) arms for personal defense in the home. The Second Amendment is not about hunting!!
The fact is he has supported complete bans on firearm ownership.
Obama’s home city of Chicago has a total ban on handguns right now. Illinois is the only state in the nation in which can be found total bans on firearm ownership. So much for him believing in the right to “keep” arms as a right which shall not be infringed.
Obama’s home state is the only one in the nation which does not allow citizens to carry loaded weapons on their person. He believes there should be a nationwide repeal of concealed-carry rights. So much for him believing in the right to “bear” arms as a right which shall not be infringed.
Obama never has been, is not now, and I suspect never will be supportive of the Second Amendment as originally intended by our Founding Fathers. He has his own definition of what the 2A means (hunting, target shooting) and that is the only reason he can say he supports it while keeping a straight face.
Don’t be deceived!! He is being truthful in saying he (personally) will not take your guns away, but he surely won’t mind allowing law enforcement officers to do that job.
I have more courage than fear. I will not be frightened or bullied into voting for McSame simply over your version of the gun issue, nor by the NRA definition of it. Earlier today, even McSame acknowledged that we are currently in the most serious financial crisis our Nation has faced since WWII. The 2nd Amendment, as well as all the others, are now in peril as a result of the failed economic policies of the NRA endorsed George W. Bush. Now, they want to push for some of the McSame old thing.
Come on. The people of Illinois, to which you refer, exercised their democratic right to vote for the representatives that enacted the bans in certain areas of that State as a matter of “States Rights.” I can only trust that those representatives reflected the wishes of the majority of the people whom elected them. That’s democracy in action. I further trust that you are not confusing bans on handguns with bans on all firearms because your choice of words is somewhat confusing. First, you make it sound as though there are no firearms allowed in Illinois; then, you make it clear that firearms exist there because it’s illegal to carry one that’s loaded. Policies that work in rural parts of the State may not fair as well in urban areas like Chicago, Aurora, Joliet, etc. I never carry a firearm that has been chambered with a cartridge, anyway. It makes perfect gun safety sense. The sound alone of pumping a shell into my 12 gauge Mossberg might just be enough of a deterrent to reverse the direction of a would-be home invader. It’s the last sound he might ever hear should he not be SWIFTLY reversing his direction.
In March 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state. They’re right; it is a district which is governed directly by Congress, itself.
The amicus curiae brief, to which you refer, is 58 pages in length and contains 4 major points of argument broken into a total of nine sub-parts; not to mention a conclusion and an appendix. It was spearheaded by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. I’ve read it thoroughly and found it to fly in the face of the Senators and Congresspersons that signed on to it, while simultaneously refusing to enact law in support of it. In other words, they actively participate in kicking this political football around, so long as they don’t actually have to put their money where their mouths are. So, the all the arguments about the DC ban are, in fact, a matter of Constitutional debate; so long as Congress wants to fight that battle on those terms.
The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t also provide one with the financial ability to do so. So that Right isn’t as equally attainable as is the Right to Freedom of Religion, for instance. If only I had the right to affordable access, by my own definitions, to as many firearms as I desire. I will never forget the letters that Charlton Heston, NRA President at the time, sent me warning, something to the effect of; if I voted for Bill Clinton, he would take my guns away from me. Heck, the economy was so good under Clinton that I purchased 3 new guns during his tenure. Under Bush, not only have I been unable to make any new purchases of guns; but out of desperation to afford my other expenses, I’ve had to sell 2 that I already had. I can barely afford my hunting lease to enjoy the ones I have left. (So much for KEEPING my arms!!!) What good does it do me anyway, to own something that I have nowhere to afford to go and use?
I increased the size of my gun cabinet under Clinton and could afford to go hunting and fishing in a cleaner environment. I decreased the size of my gun cabinet under Bush and can barely afford to go at all on land with sparse wildlife and game.
The NRA has lost its credibility with true sportsmen. Click here for the best Sporting Association to find membership in: http://www.unionsportsmen.org/
A firearm combined with proper training is a good thing to have; whether hunting, facing off against an intruder, or a mercenary Blackwater soldier, should it ever come to that. (I believe in preparing for protection against enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC) An untrained person with a knife might as well go ahead and surrender ALL their liberties and freedoms if they are unwilling to responsibly exercise their 2nd Amendment Right when facing off against an adversary whose weapon of choice is not a knife. Getting killed takes away every Right you have and every Right you were ever planning to invoke. It is in that moment of truth that I prefer to be equally armed with such adversaries…just to be a good sport about it and all.
.
banks are failing and wall street fat cats are getting more corporate welfare at taxpayers’ and workers’ expense, yet gun ownership is somehow an important issue!?! Wake up people, the second amendment is a non issue unless you are talking about organizing well regulated militias to defend democracy against the fascists who have hijacked it. And linking guns and hunting to conservation is absurd. the animals can take care of themselves if their habitat is protected.
Obama’s official position on hunting and fishing:
“Hunting and fishing are not just recreational pursuits, they are part of our national heritage. America’s hunters and anglers uphold a tradition that connects generations and brings families and friends together across our great nation. Today, we celebrate this tradition and the conservation legacy of hunters and anglers. “National Hunting and Fishing Day is a time to reaffirm our commitment to America’s sportsmen. As President, I will protect the right to bear arms, increase access to places to hunt and fish, take on polluters and clean up our streams and lakes, and protect our nation’s important wildlife habitat and wetlands. I will enhance programs that encourage young people to hunt and fish and respect and protect the outdoors. “Our nation’s sportsmen have made sure that this and future generations can enjoy our natural resources and wildlife. As President, I will stand with them and ensure that America’s hunting and fishing heritage endures.”