PA Primary: Obama, Cinton Battle Over Who's More Pro-Gun

As the Pennsylvania primary comes to a close, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are battling for every vote. And with a large number of undecided rural voters to court, the candidates are pushing their own pro-gun credentials.

Election Central uncovers some gun-related robocalling from Hillary Clinton:

I've just obtained audio of a harsh new robocall the Hillary campaign is pumping into Pennsylvania -- it directly accuses Obama twice of lying about his position on the Second Amendment, and says explicitly that it's an issue that John McCain will use against him in November.

[Listen]

The Obama camp has fired back with a robocall saying Clinton allowed guns to be confiscated from gun owners:

For example, Pittsburgh-area residents received a recorded message from Dick Lanzoni, a local sportsman supporting Obama, who portrayed the Illinois senator as a friend to gun owners and criticized his rival's record.

"I don't trust Sen. Clinton as much on issues that are important to sportsmen," says Lanzoni in the message. "Sen. Clinton voted to allow guns to be confiscated, and this raises real doubts." [Listen to the call.]

Listen to the call here.

Robocalls are a less spectacular way of getting a negative point across, but that doesn't mean Pennsylvania did see one or two controversial television ads, found here.

Check here for HuffPost's full coverage of the Pennsylvania primary.

Check here for Huffpost's latest updates on Pennsylvania polls.

Comments

[iPolitics]

Clinton spokesman Wolfson: “We’ll be honoring our debts in the weeks and months to come”

[nellpost]

GO HILLARY!

[dwmulenex]

How senators who represent the major urban centers of New York and Chicago, and who know first hand the deaths caused by guns in the hands of children and criminals can become opponents of gun regulation is beyond me. Gangs with guns are not hunters or collectors in Pennsylvania, and it is in the best interest of society to ensure that those who abuse their second amendment rights have them rescinded in the same way we rescind the driving licenses of drunk drivers who kill and injure others by their reckless behavior. It's not about the gun, it's about the behavior. Yes, it's true that people kill people, and not guns in collectors' safes. But shouldn't everyone who owns a gun be required to demonstrate that he or she can take a weapon apart, clean it, reassemble it, load it safely, and know which end the bullet comes from? And unless you are Dick Cheny, shouldn't shooting a friend in the face while hunting quail trigger a required gun safety course before you can hunt again?

Obama and Clinton are clearly supporter of gun regulation, and they would contribute more to the discussion if they would explain their ideas about guns and behavior to hunters, collectors, and those non owners like me who cherish the second amendment, instead of pretending to be hunters in tailored suits and pant suits.

[ebaLnoloM]

Unfortunately, Obama and Clinton favor restrictions which do nothing to curb violence. Neither of them (like most liberal politicians) want to enact any legislation which targets CRIMINALS. We have an ineffetive judicial system which is churning out recidivists at what, over an 80% rate? So why favor legislation which only targets the law-abiding? Do you really think that a "gun registry" or "one gun a month law" or a BAN on handguns targets criminals? You only need to look at Washington DC, where handguns have been BANNED since 1976, and consistently has the highest per capita violent crime rate in the country.

People who actually value our rights and the constitution want to hear that our politicians are going to start locking criminals away for good. I want to hear that our judicial system isn't going to accept plea bargains where murderers are pleading to lesser charges, only to be back out ont he street to commit crime again. I want to know that a murderer is going to be put away for life, whether they are 24 years old or 14 years old; our juvenile system is too lenient. Enough of the "feel good legislation" which has proven ineffective for decades.

[1will]

Obama favors an outright ban on semi automatic pistols and also favors allowing cities to ban handguns as DC has done. I don't consider that supporting the 2nd Amendment (as he says he does). Hillary has never been a friend to gun owners either.
Here's a novel solution to gun violence. Make the penalties so severe for using a firearm that the criminals will not risk it. Some will but if the penalties are harsh enough then many will think twice about using a firearm in a crime. Of course most of the anti gun politicians rail about the injustices of 3 Strikes and no parole as they propose more and more gun laws aimed at only the law abiding.
By the way, once you have abused your 2nd Amendment rights they are usually taken away just like a drunk driver's license. Of course once your 2nd Amendment rights are gone they are usually gone forever.

[Mystery954]

Swift boating Obama: Obama's Willie Horton ad -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqLvTYMJN5A

[rollingdivision]

It would have been informative to hear their positions on gun rights during the North Carolina debate.

[ebaLnoloM]

Both Clinton and Obama supported a renewal to the "Assault Weapons Ban" (which is ridiculous because the only true "assault weapons" are those used by our military which are capable of BOTH semi-automatic and automatic fire). So the weapons Hillary and Obama want to BAN are the majority of weapons in circulation today and used by law-abiding citizens for both sporting and hunting purposes. Neither are handgun friendly, and Obama opposes letting law-abiding citizens carry concealed weapons for self-protection. He needs only to look to his precious Chicago to see how well gun control is working out there

NEITHER Hillary nor Obama are pro-gun or pro 2nd Amendment. Precisely why neither of them will get my vote. What good is the economy or health care when your president is looking to turn the whole country into a nanny state like California?

If you don't have your rights and freedom, you have nothing.

[julieeiluj]

Perhaps every American should pack a six shooter on their hip. I mean we stand a very slim chance of getting through this century with life as we know it. When mother nature rears her angry head, and directs that anger at us for harming her, the planet is not going to be a place you would want to live, unless you like the mad max movies. So let's make murder with a pistol legal, as long as you can prove the person made you angry. On this anthill of a world, where our fellow man who suffers from this or that religion is breeding out of control, indeed breeding us out of a home to live on, let's just make it legal to start getting rid of each other now. Why wait? So, Hillary, strap that barretta around your thigh, and barack, well i am sure you can fit your weapon somewhere on your person. Just think of how much less traffic there would be on our highways?

[rollingdivision]

There are no differences between Clinton and Obama on gun rights, they are both against them. What is most interesting is how both are lying about their positions on gun rights.

[c1ee]

How has Obama lied about his position on gun rights? Cite any examples? All i see is him highlighting his support and respect for the second amendment, and downplaying his previous support for regulation, e.g. outlawing the selling of guns at gun fairs, which exploits a loophole that says they can buy it without any paperwork. He won't (can't) change the second amendment.

[1will]

Obama supports 'Junk' Lawsuits against gun manufacturers and also favors the ban on the sale, manufacture and possession of semi automatic handguns. He favors allowing cities to ban the possession of handguns as well (much like DC). Aside from favoring the banning of guns he's pro 2nd Amendment as long as you don't actually wish to exercise that right.

[ebaLnoloM]

Wow are you fooled. How can Obama "support" the 2nd Amendment when he supports the DC handgun ban and opposes concealed carry??

You are putting too much stock in TV and liberal media.

[rollingdivision]

Let's start with Obama's lie in the recent debate:
Mr. GIBSON: "But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?

And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns."

SENATOR OBAMA: "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." This statement includes his lie about his survey answers in particular on guns.

So what were Obama’s positions in 1996, according to the questionnaire that bears his handwriting?

* Opposed to parental notification on abortions. He amended this to say that he might possibly support it for 12- or 13-year-olds, but no older.
* Flatly opposed the death penalty, a position he denied ever having.
* Supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, again a position he denied ever taking.

[rollingdivision]

Gun rights isn't a binary issue. If a politician doesn't advocate ignoring the second amendment that doesn't mean he supports gun rights.

[ntmessage]

Seems clear that Obama's experience with guns is right up there with his bowling skills. How can he really understand this issue anyhow? Rules in a city should be different from rules in the country for example. Time after time Obama’s campaign charges attempt to make the exception seem like the rule or; make subjective and cavalier apples to oranges comparisons that look like he is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. His rhetoric makes no sense and seems wimpy anyhow. Falsely charging that Clinton wants to take away our rights on a number of items when you are in fact the most liberal in the senate means you cannot be trusted on ANY rights issue.

Obamas voting record is even to the left of the Socialist Senator! Does not sound like someone who will fight for our freedoms, yet has the nerve to say his opponent would not, when in fact we know she will and always has.

[ATLiberal]

Well, unfortunately for those of us who support Obama, it looks like an 8-10 point victory for Clinton if the polls are to be believed. The wild cards at play being the newly registered and those who cannot be polled (no land lines). They should break for Obama. Probably not nearly enough to blunt the "undecided" vote, which is likely to break about 2-1 for Clinton in a state with these demographics.

So a 26 point lead shrinks to 8-10 and the Clintons will rejoice, call it their watershed moment and be off to get crushed in NC and who knows in IN? Polls are all over the place there. Then she will win WV, Puerto Rico and KY. He will win OR, NE, SD and MT.

And we are right back where we started folks. Obama will be 150+/- pledged delegates ahead and the superdels, whatever their misgivings and whatever questions they have about electability, electoral college BS, FL votes, big state strategy, blah blah, yada yada, will give Obama the nomination, because overturning a lead of delegates of that size will be the worst possible scenario and run a very real, very probable risk of splitting the party, alienating the new generation of voters and draining the energy out of the Democratic Party. In the end, the rules are the rules, and the most delegates are the deciding factor, and a lead of 150 is significant. My 2 cents.

[ATLiberal]

I want to make one caveat to this. If Obama stays within 6 points in PA, I predict Superdels will start moving in his direction. It will be very difficult for Clinton to spin a 6 points or less win in PA as a positive.

[c1ee]

Yep, i am hopeful that will be the case. No need for the Hillary's thumping in NC in two weeks for the supers to start the exodus.

[ntmessage]

Whatever. There will be no clear winner until it is complete and we deal with FL and MI.

The DNC over turned democracy by disenfranchising MI and FL and Obama fought to keep it that way. You cannot make up rules that violate the very first principle and foundation of democracy and still retain any moral high ground whatsoever on the Democracy issue.

[ATLiberal]

We'll see how it plays, ntmessage. The FL and MI delegations will be let in. It will be after a candidate has been selected. That is the only way to do it without a lot of rancor and infighting. So they won't factor into the actual selection. That doesn't bode well for Hillary.

[skepticalindenver]

Obama did not fight "to keep it that way." Elections are where candidates campaign then voters vote. You only had one half of of an election in those states....­.the vote. Only some moron could even suggest that using those results or throwing together some haphazard do-over would suffice for a fair and democratic process. But the Clintonistas spin their crap again. If you want to go after someone about FL and MI go after the state operatives that screwed it up, but quit your BS whining about Obama shutting voters out.

[kempis]

Do we know for sure that Obama's campaign "fired back"? Contrary to his claims, Obama has never been above going negative first. He just does it and then lies about how he had to do it in response to mean ol' Hillary.

He's a liar and a con. And I can't believe people are falling for this crap, just like they fell for Dubya's.

[ATLiberal]

Really? can you provide some examples of Obama's "attack first" tactics? As opposed to just saying it?

[MrZrule]

Bloggers who provide attribution - who said it, when they said it, some context, are believable. And can maybe turn someone's thinking. We all know what opinions are like and we all have one.

[anney]

Looks to me as if both candidates have fallen into the trap that Obama pointed out. Why is either one of them focusing on guns? It just confirms Obama's observation that if candidates don't present issues for consideration that address their real needs, citizens' votes can be won with far less important issues.

[c1ee]

I don't agree. Obama has a lot of things to say. Not his fault if the press decide to only give light to what he said about guns. They know it's an issue they can use to start heated debates and petty name calling.

[sparkandy]

Geez! Talk about pandering. These two will pander to anyone anywhere any time.

[1will]

Neither candidate is a friend to gun owners or supports the 2nd Amendment. I suspect they might convince a few people they are pro gun but the majority of gun owners know which politicians are lying on this issue.

[rollingdivision]

Maybe one of them should flat out express their real position on gun rights. Explain they know many disagree and gain some points for being honest and candid. It would be like a new kind of politics.

[1will]

Hmmm....a politician telling the truth. Could America handle it?

[c1ee]

Please, you do that when you go for your next job interview. I don't see anything wrong with downplaying their previous anti-gun history and highlighting (not exaggerating) good things to say about guns. That applies to Hillary too, but she seems to (more than Obama) exaggerate her gun support and lie about her opposition to guns.

[elisunday]

Sen. Clinton looks demonic in that picture. Is she incapable of taking a flattering photo, or is the media just feeding us the worst poses?

[c1ee]

Yep, it is a pretty insidious way to turn public opinion, and I'm an Obama supporter. Same for Cheney, every photo of him is in that infamous smirk of his.

[StinkyPete]

These candidates are fooling no one. They are both stridently anti firearms rightists.
They both support Mayor Nutter with his explicitly illegal, unconstitutional gun laws. He actually declares himself of the caliber of the founding fathers in doing this.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/city/20080411_Nutter_defiantly_signs_five_gun_laws.html

Sen Obama's statements about 'clinging' to guns came about with this antic and the declaration of unconstitutional by Ca Supreme Court of the much treasured Proposition H - a referenda passed in San Francisco.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

These idiots are really going to get their noses rubbed in it when SCOTUS comes up with it's decision.

[Gasparilla]

There is a difference between supporting the right to own a gun and the right to own just any weapon. No one needs machine guns or other weapons of those type. I am curious as to what guns Clinton voted to allow to be confiscated. The ad makes it sound like all guns and that is not true.

[StinkyPete]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

She and Sen Obama have gun control positions that are just plain silly. Posing and posturing for attention but showing no leadership. It's not that I just disagree with them - they are just plain wrong headed and propose laws that make no sense or are irrelevant to the problem.
IMHO demonstrating need to possess is not the right approach - rather showing need to ban. I believe that self defense as a legitimate criterion for firearms and firearms ownership protects firearms specifically designed for use against humans. Semi auto handguns and rifles are in that class and I hope to see legalizing 3-shot trigger sets on defensive carbines - Ideal for home defense.