The following is a press release put out by the owner of the web site www.SportsmenforObama.org .

I encourage everyone to read it, pass it on, and visit SportsmenforObama.org for more information. –JAK

Contact Jeff Settle
303-882-1294                                                              
   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
admin@sportsmenforobama.org                                               
            October 30, 2008

Boulder, CO,  Oct 30, 

Sportsmen for Obama? Rejects Obama's Claim to

Support the Second Amendment.

Objective analysis of Obama's voting record, in the federal and Illinois
Senates has been performed. The record includes fifteen separate votes
against gun owners and manufacturers.

Only a single vote for gun owners has been found. The bill Obama voted for
prohibited the confiscation of firearms in case of an emergency. This bill
came in front of the Senate in 2006, probably after Obama decided to run
for the presidency.

Obama's gun control votes and statements made before his presidential run
also indicate a candidate hostile to the Second Amendment as defined by
the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller. He has publicly declared:

•	he was in favor of local law suits against gun manufacturers,
•	he supports for prohibiting gun shops within five miles of any school,
•	he is against concealed carry by law abiding citizens,
•	he favors one gun a month laws,
•	he favors ‘assault weapons bans’,
•	he has favored a ban on all semiautomatic firearms,
•	he favors limits on handgun ammunition,
•	he favors limits on 'assault weapon' ammunition,
•	he believes that state and local entities should be able to implement
their own gun control,
•	and last month stated he would not have enough votes to start gun
confiscations.

“Obama’s supposed gun control position as a presidential candidate are so
counter to his previous words and votes that Obama comes across as someone
who will say whatever his audience wants to hear.” said Jeff Settle, owner
of Sportsmen for Obama?.

A survey by Sportsmen for Obama? indicates that the gun rights issue is a
loser for those that are aware of Obama’s gun rights history.
Specifically, of our readers, 32% of readers will not vote for Obama
because of his gun control position whereas 9% will vote for him because
of his gun control positions.

Sportsmen for Obama? (www.sportsmenforobama.org) is a derivative work of
Gun Law News (www.gunlawnews.org ). Its purpose is to highlight Barack
Obama’s words and actions on gun control in a nonpartisan manner. Federal,
state and media website links are cross referenced to allow readers to
verify information.

###

For more information about the Sportsmen for Obama? project or to schedule
an interview, contact Jeff Settle at 303-882-1294 or by e-mail at
admin@sportsmenforobama.org.

Dan Cooper was asked to resign his position with the rifle company he founded after the following story broke in the general media and swept through the firearms comunity.

Cooper has stepped down as CEO and is no longer associated with Cooper Arms.

Somethimes you've just got to wonder what the Hell some people are thinking – if they're thinking at all.

Maybe Cooper drank the Kool-aid from the National Hunters and Shooters Association, the Democrat/Brady front group posing as a gun and hunters rights organization.  Whatever the reason for his decision, it has cost him and could destroy the company he built just because his name is still on it.

Here's the original story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm

This story out of New Brunswick, Eastern Canada is just too bizarre to let lie and explains why it is important to resist efforts to create ever broader "buffer zones" where firing a gun is prohibited.

The whole issue is that the guy is accused of firing a gun closer than the minimum 400 meters away from a residence.  Look at the details of this story.  The owner of the residence was out hunting himself and heard a shot that sounded like it was "close to his house."  He took a day off from work to investigate the shot and found where a deer had been dressed 150 yards behind his house.  He called the forest rangers who investigated and found blood near the house, measured the distance, found a spent shell a few yards away, and a crease in an Alder tree.  They also found four wheeler tracks.  They called in the dogs and tracked down a guy in his home.  They also had an aerial photograph taken of the area.  They confiscated the guy's rifle and his deer and put him in jail.  All for firing a gun 150+ meters away from a residence where no one was home.  The whole thing went to trial where the crew from Miami CSI presented forensic evidence from the deer autopsy and the judge decided that the guy was being less than truthfull about the whole thing so he found him guilty – of firing a gun closer than 400 meters away from a residence.

He was fined a couple of hundred bucks, probably lost his hunting license for a year – though I wasn't clear about that – and faced a month in jail if he didn't pay up.  He also lost his rifle.  No word on what happened to the deer carcass.

How on earth does this warrant so much attention?  The aerial photography cost more than the fine and the value of the gun put together!  And they probably have laws in Canada requiring that the gun be destroyed rather than sold to another hunter who might go out and abuse it like this guy did.  The whole thing is just mind boggling.  –JAK

Hunter guilty of discharging firearm too close to residence

 Published Wednesday October 15th, 2008

Judge finds accused's testimony not credible

By Madeleine Leclerc

A hunter's version of events did not ring true for Grand Falls provincial court judge Jacques Dejsardins who found Gerald H. Sisson guilty on Sept. 30 of unlawfully discharging a firearm within 400 metres of a Burntland Brook residence on Oct. 22, 2007.

Judge Desjardins gave his decision in the case a day after Sisson's trial was completed on Sept. 29.

The issue was whether Sisson had shot a deer within 400 metres behind Erin Jenkins' residence or outside its perimetre. According to the Crown's case, the deer had been shot approximately 153 metres from the back of the residence, while Sisson offered evidence to the contrary during his trial.

Continue reading Unbelievable Canadians →

    It is absolutely outrageous that the media is giving any credence at all to the Democrat/Brady shill group American Hunters and Shooters Association.  The Brady's and the media were "shocked, shocked I say" when they discovered that one of their volunteers was apparently working for pro-gun interests – even though all of the reports indicate that the woman was an active and effective worker who was very successful in her anti-gun activities.  Contrast that to the media fawning over AHSA and treating them as a bona fide gun rights organization even though the founders and leaders of the group have long records of support for gun control groups and are closely linked to anti-gun Democrat politicians.  Reading AHSA president Ray Schoenke's blog is like reading Brady Campaign director Paul Helmke's; they use the same talking points and phraseology and could easily be interchanged.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were both written by the same Brady staffers.

    Even so, the media insists on treating this bogus organization – which has virtually no members – as a credible voice for gunowners and "a competing gun rights organization" to NRA (Glen Johnson – AP).

   This is not a case of the media being bamboozled by slick political operators.  This is collusion in the worst degree.  Any "journalist" that treats AHSA with any credibility at all is doing so because that "journalist" personally supports the views expressed by AHSA – especially as they oppose the NRA.

    Such yellow journalism is outrageous and inexcusable.  Media watchdog organizations and journalism societies should be calling foul and the "journalists" participating in and perpetuating this charade should face disciplinary action.