Gun Rights Activists Take Issue With Gun Inquiry on Obama Administration Questionnaire

DUI CONVICTIONS vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:

Is the second amendment Right really an inalienable Right when the government eternally Debars the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on one’s drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions? (Felony) A Victimless Crime & Void of any injured party.

QUESTION: What prevents the government from debarring the peoples “second amendment right” based on acquiring 10 or more points on a driving record as they have for acquiring 3 drinking while driving convictions?

How can lawmakers remove an inalienable protected “Right” such as the Second Amendment rather than another protected right as free speech, choice of religion, speedy trial or right to counsel? (What does protected & inalienable mean?)

Driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely no relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms or to be secure in their homes regardless the number of DUI convictions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

The government contends that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk factor to society and should therefore have their “Right” to keep and bear arms eternally debarred void of any chance of future restoration.

Shouldn’t the government first eternally debar (Remove) the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle before they debar (Remove) the drivers protected second amendment “Right” to posses a firearm void of reinstatement? (Think about this) Which removal would tend to save lives?

The government currently reinstates the drivers “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle, yet eternally & forever debars the drivers “Right” to ever own or possess a firearm for the exact same drinking & driving offense of 3 dui convictions. (HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE AND WHERE IS THE SOUND REASONING?)

Drunk drivers kill thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers protected “Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever. Yet the laws allow for reinstatement of the driving “Privilege” (which is not even a “Right”) and does not have the protections of a “Right” (Is the governments concern with saving lives or removing gun rights?

In Fact, Debarring the “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of any free man! Eternally debarring the right to possess a firearm has not saved a single life and utterly tramples upon our inalienable God given & Constitutionally protected rights of all free men!

THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT: (RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION)

The “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For 3 drinking & driving convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision for absolute & full reinstatement & restoration of the driving privilege.

The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A Right” and “is NOT a mere Privilege”:
For 3 drinking & driving convictions, this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement. (SHOULDN’T THIS BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE?)

Regardless of one’s personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for the guaranteed inalienable protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms as there is positive provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege of operating a motor vehicle for the exact same drinking & driving offense of 3 drinking & driving convictions. (Do you agree?)

This usurpation of the people’s second amendment right should unequivocally be re-evaluated with this clear & sound reasoning of facts. If this were not so, why wouldn’t the government eternally debar the privilege to the driver from ever operating a motor vehicle which would save countless lives instead of going after the removal of the second amendment right which has never saved even a single life?

Shouldn’t Constitutionally Protected Rights take front seat to a privilege?
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE & LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

I am puzzled over some of the responses here so i compliled this small letter with thought:

RE: DUI CONVICTIONS vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:

Is the guaranteed second amendment Right really a Guaranteed Right when the government eternally Debarred the right to keep and bear arms based on one’s drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions?

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ:

How come law makers choose to Debar the second amendment Right to drunk drivers, rather than another Right, such as free speech, religion, or to be secure in their homes, or better yet the Privilege of driving?

Driving under the influence of alcohol has no relationship with the second amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms regardless the number of DUI convictions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

The government contends that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a risk factor to society and should thereby have their Right to keep and bear arms eternally Debarred.

Shouldn’t the government Debar the drunk drivers Privilege to drive? (The root cause of the issue)

Drunk drivers kill thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers “Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life.

However, Debarring the “Privilege” to drive will save countless lives and will not infringe upon the God given “Rights” of any free man!

THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT: (RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION)

The driving “Privilege” is a “Privilege,” “IS NOT A RIGHT”:
For convictions of 3rd DUI the driving “Privilege” is revoked for up to 5 years with time frame provision for full reinstatement of driving Privilege.

The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A Right” and “is not a Privilege”:
Yet, for convictions of 3rd DUI, this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is currently eternally Debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement. The Right is forever and eternally lost.

Regardless of one’s stand on drinking and driving, there should be a reinstatement provision for the “Right” to keep and bear arms as there is provision for a “Privilege” the Privilege of driving.

If this usurpation of Right is not overruled, there needs to be a remedy and time frame for reinstatement of the Right since the initial core threat of drinking and driving has no relevance to keeping and bearing arms …

the question by the team is a loaded question and is obviously biased as written.

Reality is nobody in their right mind would answer that question and in fact I myself would lie on that poll.

Same as exit polls, I never tell the truth to those who ask as it is nobody's business but my own.

So, we'll have to register BIC pens, too ? Lots and lots of stabbings have been done with THOSE bad boys.....

The NRA hypes things up a bit for profits and to counterbalance how Obama downplays his anti-gun agenda. Us pro-gunners may seem paranoid, but that's because he's appointing people from the Clinton administration and he supposedly is in cahoots with the UN working towards US disarmament. In 1994 the Clinton admin. passed the "assault weapons" ban, and it took another ten years before a republican majority decided that was stupid, unpopular, and innefective. We don't ask for much, really, just affordable ammo for our 30 round magazines and rifles that happen to look like machine guns.

"Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage"

Here is my answer to his question...

Mine cause property damage every day.

I shoot mine at paper targets that are my property.

Guess I will not be working for him ;)

After reading all the posts it is difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than to realize that most of the people commenting on B.H.O.'s questionaire are motivated not by an investigation of the issues it raises, but by slogans, partisanship, insults and name-calling.

This is a constitutional issue, clear and simple. The Supreme Court of the United States says that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

No president-elect, and please let's try to remember that he is not yet actually the president, has the right to ask anyone, applicant or otherwise, if they are exercising their constitutional rights. We all do that everyday. We should be protected while doing that. And to ask us if we are, is foolish, intrusive and threatening.

Attempts to make this question something other than what it is, are to build smoke screens to hide the man's true intent, which is, in the case of Obama, to disarm America, as a nation and as individuals. Otherwise, what's the point of everything he has said and done so far, in addition to what he is now doing?

The question has little to do with the NRA and nothing to do with owning a car, using drugs or with getting a job. It is an attack on constitutional rights. Obama intends to "run" this country in a direction that most of you, including those who voted for him, will not like!

When the "O" is done their won't be any knives, bats or any other "weapons" that could cause personal injury or property damage.

Wow!
Does anybody own a knife or baseball bat?
Stupid irrelevant questions..

Many questions on his questionnaire are intrusive and irrelevant but considering his bashing of Illinois second amendment rights there is cause for concern. Why is there no mention of drug use, extra material affairs or plagiarism? I guess all that is o.k. Lets remember without the second amendment there are no other amendments. Government for the people by the people.

Is Barry not an "EOE" employer? The left wingers amaze me at their stupidity. I learned in 3rd or 4th grade why the 2nd amendment is there. While lefties are dismantling the Constitution let’s hope they don't pass legislation to force people to try the gay lifestyle.

Wondering if there is also a question;

Do you or any members of your immediate family own an automobile? If so, provide complete ownership, insurance and registration information. Has the insurance or registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been involved in any DUI incidents, or the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

Ifthis "questionnaire" is for hireing, consider this. Why isn't someone/anyone asking the President Elect's staff this question? "Isn't it safe to assume, that if these "potential hires" are going to be working with or near the President, that a complete "BACKGROUND CHECK" would/should be run on the afore mentioned "potential hires". If this is true then wouldn't the background checks uncover the questionnaires' qustions anyway? Oh, by the way, as a former government employee...lieing on the questionnaire or background check questionnaire is aq crime in itself. HELLOOOOOOO!!!!! it's called trying to conceal something you don't want the employer to know. DUH!

I agree with Obama on most social issues. E.g., the "War on Drugs" really is a civil war directed against black people. Conservatives have shown themselves far too willing to interefere in the private lives of others. They have thus laid the ground-work for taking away their freedoms.

Simply-stated, "Freedom of choice" should also include the freedom to keep and bear arms. This question essentially ensures that gun owneers will be completely unrepresented in the white house.

There is no reason for anyone to know if another person has a gun unless the person asking has plans on committing a crime against the person being asked; or the person asking has plans on taking the gun away from the person who foolishly admits to having one. It' so strange. The criminals have known this for a very long time.

And, by the way, how are the people in BO's civil army armed? Do they have guns? If they include any of those we've seen on TV lately, we already know they carry billy clubs.

Oh, I understand. He is going to have a private army but they are all going to be peaceful and loving and not carry weapons. Huh.

But then maybe that's why the question. It's a recruiting tool!

The statement "to ensure anyone with a gun has one within the parameters of the law" is an uninformed statement. The 2nd amendment is the only parameter needed to have a gun.

If it was not for Guns there would not be America. The young punk College Students who are communist liberals are
very un-educated on history when it comes to the issue of gun control.
Do you know the real history about Gun Controll ? Hitler + Gun Control=
The Holocost. Gun Control is Naziisem which explains why 88 % of Orothodox Jews in America are big time gun owners.

if it's OK for Tobacco Cos. to kill thousands of people with cigarettes, I guess it's no big deal
if everyone has guns and kills each other...
what's the diff....... dead is dead....

The question is an invasion of privacy and isn’t relevant to anything therefore, it should be removed from the application.

Hey anyone out there that owns a car with more than 200 horsepower should register it because why does anyone need all that horsepower or speed. And what about people with houses along the beach they're killing the natural habitat. While we're on the topic of public safety why not ask about drug taking, HIV and anything else that is harmful to others. It's called freedom for a reason!