Obama signals? What about Guns? His Application for employment

[JustRalph]

Obama may be signaling that he will be going after guns?

Check out question 59 on the Obama employement application.

even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question.
Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.” …
It’s just one question on a lengthy personnel form — No. 59 on a 63-question list — but the furor over the query is a vivid reminder of the intensity of support for Second Amendment rights and signals the scrutiny Obama is likely to receive from the ever-vigilant gun lobby.
Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.

[Tom]

Were there any questions to make sure none were child predators, too?

[boxcar]

Obama may be signaling that he will be going after guns?

Check out question 59 on the Obama employement application.

even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question.
Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.” …
It’s just one question on a lengthy personnel form — No. 59 on a 63-question list — but the furor over the query is a vivid reminder of the intensity of support for Second Amendment rights and signals the scrutiny Obama is likely to receive from the ever-vigilant gun lobby.
Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it seems to me that the excuse the "transition team" gave for those question is pretty lame. When people buy guns they must comply with their STATE laws -- not federal laws. What business is it of the federal government to pry into people's affairs that have to do with state laws?

But as a reminder: Obama lied through his teeth during the campaign when he essentially stated that he supported second amendment rights. I guess he forgot that as IL senator, he voted against gun owners' rights to protect themselves in their own homes against intruders.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

reworded for clarity

What business is it of the employer to pry into the job applicants affairs that have to do with state laws?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Are the concerned about work place shootings?

[Tom]

Maybe he knows something we don't yet! ;)

[chickenhead]

I would like to see them check for other state offenses. In Alabama for instance, bear wrestling is a serious offense. This poses a potential problem for the Obama admin, as tackling the bear market is tops on the agenda, but specific experience will be hard to come by, with laws like these floating about.

This probably explains (on several levels) why none of his economic advisers will be from Alabama.

http://law.justia.com/alabama/codes/13297/13a-12-5.html

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful bear exploitation if he or she knowingly does any one of the following:

(1) Promotes, engages in, or is employed at a bear wrestling match.

(2) Receives money for the admission of another person to a place kept for bear wrestling.

(3) Sells, purchases, possesses, or trains a bear for bear wrestling.

I like the knowingly part. Could you possibly do any of those 3 unknowingly? I feel sorry for the guy that is unknowingly employed to battle a wrastlin' bear!

[LottaKash]

Piece by Piece and inch by inch,,,as the puzzle gains on it's completion....:eek:

best,

[LottaKash]

"Waiting perioids are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal" -- Janet Reno

And lookee, they are still at it, don't you think ?..

best,

[LottaKash]

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radica Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans.." "And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move in to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend n the Housing Projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people fee safer in their communities" --President Bill Clinton 3/22/94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

Hmm.....still at it I suspect, right oSama ?....:eek: ... we shall see, quite soon....:eek:


best,

[Tom]

Funny how the lefties here are always about loss of freedoms under Bush, when not a one of them could ever show a single case, but the dems are ALWAYS out there hacking away at our freedoms. this is why you always vote against all dems, ALWAYS. Period. End of story. This SOB fool will be no different. He will raise taxes, cut the military, end due diligence agaisnt terroism, and do all he can to errod our freedoms. He is from a cookie cutter. No changes, just a new fool doing it.

[chickenhead]

I hope they try to come for the guns soon. It's almost beginning to feel like living in the bunker I dug out in my backyard these last 20 years was a waste of time.

[JustRalph]

if you are going to make a move to take away firearms or severely limit the availability ...........you may not want any pro gun folks, or heavy collectors in your admin.