Obama: Dont stock up on guns
 

Obama: Don't stock up on guns :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: 44: Barack Obama

If you go by Obama's voting record, he is as anti-gun as they come. Though in the article he is quoted as saying "I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear."

The question is what to believe?

I think the answer is in the statement: "Don't stock up on guns"

Since when does a president care about what people are purchasing and storing?

Ever hear a president say "Don't stock up on TP, or Food, or gasoline, or emergency supplies, or hunting equipment, etc?" Nope, because they don't care whether you feel compelled to stockpile those things. The fact that Obama is making a statement on the subject indicates he is alarmed by the increased number of recent purchases and is trying to discourage people from buying firearms.

Oh, and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear" because if they keep a weapon he bans, they will become 'unlawful gun owners.'



I don't think we will see any form of new (successful) firearms legislation for at least a year after Obama takes office, and then the success of that legislation will depend on the level of popular support for the president and the congress. The 94 AWB really came back to haunt the democrats, so I doubt they will be so brash in the future. However, if their approval ratings are high, they may burn a little political capital in order to further an issue they really believe in...increased restrictions, but this time with no sunset clause.

Obama has consistenly supported extremely harsh gun-control legislation and continues to indicate support for another AWB, a national Concealed Carry Ban (even though that should be up to the individual states), and other 'reasonable' firearms safety legislation. I guess firearms are the safest when they are not owned by citizens.

The NRA is not stupid.

Much of their rhetoric about Obama's record on gun control is false or misleading.
The false and misleading claims keep those contributions coming in to the NRA....and that is their goal.

Until there is widespread support for new or expanding federal legislation, including the AWB, it wont happen. Obama cant do it w/o Congress and many Democrats in swing districts are not on board and never will be.

In many ways, it is comparable to some religious groups and their fight to save Christmas from the liberal elites....it makes for great fund-raising....but its pure political theater.

Yes, Obama has a horrific state senate voting record. par for the course in illinois politics.

any new gun control legislation will have to be prompted by dems in the house and senate but probably will never get out of comittee, though if it did, Obama sure wouldn't veto it and lay it at the feet of the congress.

that being said, the only real lesson learned from the 94 AWB was to not talk about it. When it comes, it will come as quietly as possible, probably being added as an amendment to some absolutely necessary spending bill and then promptly being challenged in the courts.

It's almost amusing to watch so many people vote known anti-gunners in to office so they can have their 'change', yet turn right around and participate in actions diametrically opposed to the people they elect in to office.

What voting record?

Obama voted with the Republican majority on the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment that passed 84-16:

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

....not the 16 Democrats (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it.

His vote on the Firearms Protection Liability Act was based on the belief that gun manufacturers should not have blanket liability protection that NO other industries in the country have.

His position on gun control in general is that it may, in some circumstances, be a local issue. If the majority of citizens of DC or San Fransisco or Bedford or Wichita want to enact local crime prevention laws that includes gun control that may go farther than the Brady Act and pass a Constitutional test, that should be their right.

Its called federalism, something the right wants on other issues, but not guns...go figure.

I don't see the left wanting "federalism" on any other constitutional amendments? . Why would the 2nd amendment be any different than the 1st or the 3rd, 4th or the 5th...... go figure. ......

THIS JUST IN: There are more important things in life than firearms... like having a President under 80 years of age with an IQ above 80.

The bullshit political system in the country gave us two viable options on election day.

If I just voted on the issue of who was pro-gun... it would go against my other beliefs and common sense. I can't do that. I've seen 8 years of bullshit. I can't do it anymore.

There are a lot more important issues in the country than who can own an AR-15 clone.

...

I'd trade some of my guns for a country that made my military service mean something.

...

Hey, you wouldn't understand this, would you? Nah, guns solve all your life problems, apparently.

I'm not aware of any strong liberal opposition to a state attempting to limit individual rights guaranteed under the 1st, 3rd or 5th amendments as long as it is not in conflict with the 14th amendment. The issue most closely related would possibly be gay marriage; where the issue is a total ban as opposed to a lesser limitation of rights.

But, hey, I wouldn't be surprised if you prove me wrong. IMO, the difference is conservatives generally use a "states rights" argument to advance their cause much more so than liberals.

And it still wont take away from the fact that many conservatives (who stand for states rights) do not believe in states rights when it comes to gun control if it means a state limiting or restricting (not banning) those rights in a manner that still protects an individual's 2nd amendment.

However, the issue is Obama's voting record on gun control and I could have made my point w/o the snarky comment on federalism.

i've often wondered if there is some collective psychological linkage between the gun thing and other aspects of libertarian conservatism--like rejecting the notion of the social, of working through organizations, leaves one isolated and powerless. if you run this through the illusions of a lockean state of nature, the fact that there's no material scarcity minimizes the isolation and powerlessness, turns it into something that seems opposite---but if you factor in material scarcity, these features return. and unlike early 18th century fictions built into texts on political theory, the world is unpredictable, so in real life, things fluctuate. one can go from being ok to really reallynot being ok very quickly. and your ideology pushes you toward dealing with these fluctuations from a position of no power. so having a lot of guns around is reassuring. l
ike crompsin said above, they seem to solve life's problems.
except, of course, they don't.

i've said before, but anyway--my position on gun control is that it should be a local matter. i favor tight controls in a city like chicago. in a more rural area, maybe not--people do hunt for example----but hunting in chicago is most likely to be hunting people, and that doesn't make sense to me.

the nra's total opposition to any and all controls based on generally sloppy versions of the slippery-slope argument cannot have traction on its own merits, it seems to me. this explains the venture into collective psychological speculation. it's all more than passing strange.

I love me some single-issue voters. Nothing boosts Republican voting numbers like gun owners and pro-lifers. Seriously, where would the GOP be without them?

I've been in a lot of gun control debates recently and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of where the line is drawn in terms of legally arming oneself. The 2nd Amendment does not mention the word "gun" anywhere in it's text; it says the right to "arm" oneself. So does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to own a flamethrower? C-4? Weapons grade uranium? Gatling guns? Surface-to-Air missiles? "No, of course not, that's unreasonable" is usually the response, yet any suggestion to limit the types of guns that can be owned suddenly becomes this anti-American cluster hump.

I think gun owners should be treated the same as car owners. Your guns (cars) need to be registered in your state, you should be legally required to have gun (car) related insurance, and you should need to pass a practical test to receive a state issued gun (driver's) license.

dont even attempt to 'understand' me with this crappy diatribe. You take a serious look at the things going on in this country and try to convince me that one party really cares more about the people over the other party. It's bullshit and you damn well know it. The economy is in a spiralling freefall and its the fault of BOTH parties players in power. You say firearms are not that important, lets see how you feel in two years.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 23 : 34-----
no big surprise that the biggest nanny staters feel that the 2nd Amendment should require government permission to exercise while they should leave all the others the hell alone.

You want to treat gun ownership like car ownership? Fine, that means that I can buy any damn gun I want including .50 caliber machine guns. That means that I can carry any gun I buy anywhere and to any state or city that I want. That also means that as long as I'm not blatantly violating any law, the police can't stop and harass me because i'm wearing a gun.

And, like driver's licenses, a requirement to renew every few years. People have felt we're on the brink of a revolution since...well...the Revolution. It says more about you than it does about the state of our country.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 28 : 14-----
Actually, I'm all for allowing people to purchase all sorts of firearms. That said, there's no reason why you can't wait 6 months for your purchase, be subjected to a background check (in any and all buying situations, none of this loophole bullshit), and be required to demonstrate a basic level of skill in order to obtain the proper license. We should have a legal process available to go before a judge in urgent matters of self-defense, such as abusive partners, in order to expedite the gun-purchasing process when necessary.

i'll ignore the "nanny stater" jab, as I'm anything but that.

using the car/gun analogy, I think owning bigger guns could work, but then you'd be looking at a higher class of license (much like truck licenses, boat licenses, etc.)

I find it a little disturbing that you're so glib about the responsible ownership of a deadly weapon.

and every election cycle brings us closer. Do you really believe it's just coincedence that northcom is in the US now?


do we have to wait 6 months to buy a car? do we need a background check for a car? do we need a government permission slip to sell a car to your brother in law? and there already is a legal process for restraining orders, completely one sided, but it's there.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 32 : 51-----
whats glib about it? if you screw up with your gun, you lose it and spend time in jail. it's called accountability, something this country has been lacking for a long time. thanks libs.

If you screw up with your gun, people die or become critically injured. If you screw up with your car, people may die or become critically injured. What's so bad about requiring a demonstration of aptitude for both?

Listen, I'm sitting here saying you can have all the guns you want, of any type, you just need to show a certain aptitude and responsibility. That's a far cry from wanting to take away particular guns.

As for the waiting period, people don't buy a new car in the heat of the moment in order to run someone over. Someone with no history, on the other hand, may very well purchase a gun in the heat of the moment in order to exact revenge on someone. Aside for immediate concerns of self-defense, I can think of absolutely no reason why someone can't be patient for 6 months before they get their gun. Is that such a terrible compromise in order to have any and all the guns you want?

What really grabs me is that people run around saying "I gotta have my gun!" and then when I carry a knife the same people shriek and exclaim "Oh god that's scary! You can't have that!"

It astonishes me that the prevailing attitude in this country seems to be that people should be able to buy an assault rifle, but if they carry a knife that's three inches long they should go to jail.

There truly is no limit on the 2nd amendment, except for the one that the supreme court (in my opinion) unwisely blew straight through - namely the bit about being in an organized militia.

Since there's no limit, yes, you can have a nuclear missile if you can afford one. You can have a tank, or a flame thrower, or that ultimate weapon of mass terror, a bowie knife.

the major problem with requiring aptitude and competence to exercise a right is where do you draw the line? do we start with a score of 50%? maybe 75%? and should we just end up saying if you can't be perfect with your gun, you don't have that right? Next, do we hold those requirements equally across the board for all? or do we start making exceptions for federal agents and state/local law enforcement? then judges? prosecutors and politicians? or should we just go right ahead and throw them the exemptions immediately since they get to write the laws anyway? It's great that you're promoting unrestricted gun ownership. It does leave me to wonder what other rights you think should be strictly regulated.


it is to me. should we start having 6 month waits on car ownership? house ownership? that last might not be a bad thing considering the mortgage bailout fiasco we're dealing with. what say you? a 6 month wait for government approval before you buy a house? maybe 3 month wait before renting an apartment? just to make sure you don't default on rent? A year long wait on buying an animal to make sure you're responsible enough to take care of another life? how about a 3 year wait before having children so the government can license you for parenting classes?

you see where this goes? it's called slippery slope for a reason. Of course alot of people would rather dismiss this theory because 'it couldn't happen here', but look whats been going on for the last 90 years.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 59 : 21-----
it's ludicrous, isn't it? I think you should be able to carry that knife, or a 6 inch knife, a friggin sword if you want.

First, there are still limits on the 2nd Amendment. Stupid and illogical limits, but that's our nanny state of bliss for you.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment does not say that the right of the militia can keep and bear arms, it says 'the people'. it merely states that a militia is necessary. In those famous words of old, 'I ask you, who is the militia? It is every able bodied citizen save a few public officials'.

If you can backpack that nuclear missile, go for it. I don't see it happening, but there it is. In truth, using logic and common sense, one should be able to realize that 'arms' as it states in the 2nd, is talking about any arm that a individual soldier would carry in to war. Therefore, missiles, rockets, and aircraft launched ordinance should obviously be disallowed, but then we're having to deal with people that don't agree about private gun ownership and obfuscate the issue with jackassed interpretations.

If gun owners didn't take up arms against the government during the past 8 years, they never will

Looking at your first point. Obama, as a State Senator, voted against legislation legislation that allowed a loop hole for gun owners who violated local gun laws when they used their guns for self-defense in their home. So on one hand we have local gun law and on the other we have the issue of the use of a fire arm when a person's life is threatened in their own home. The NRA's position and the position of the legislation Obama voted against, is that a person should not be subject to local criminal penalty if they properly use a firearm in their own home to defend life even if the ownership of the weapon violated local law. The type of penalty a gun owner could be subjected to could not only be criminal but would open the door for civil penalty, in affect Obama's position is to allow local law, ban a federally protected right and to elevate the status of a criminal to that of the intended victim. The issue bringing this to the fore front in Illinois was a gentleman who shot a burglar in in self-defense in his own home, which was the finding of the judicial system. Obama's vote would have subjected this man to criminal and possible civil penalty for defending his life in his own home.

The loophole applies even if the home owner possessed the gun illegally.

But the larger issue for me is the fact that the NRA spends $millions, including an estimated $40 million this year to falsely define or mischaracterize Obama's (and congressional candidates) positions on gun control.

Could it be because they can't defend their position on the facts.....since, according to most polls, a majority of Americans share Obama's position of supporting reasonable federal gun control along with some level of state/local autonomy.

"Well. . . Regulated. . . Militia."

Since when are all the people well-regulated?




Oh no. You're not gonna get away with inserting crap that isn't there. It doesn't say anything about it having to be small enough to carry while walking around. If you can blow right through the well-regulated-militia clause, claiming that as far as the intent of the framers is concerned, said clause is irrelevant, you certainly can't start adding clauses that they never wrote in.

Yeah, one needs to read all the clauses. A well-regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." This implies that a militia that isn't well-regulated could compromise this security. And "the people" relates back to "militia." They are talking about the same people: ordinary citizens who might at any moment need to take on a soldier's role. I don't read this as a blank cheque on arms ownership.

well regulated, when inserted in to the 2nd Amendment did not mean what people think it means today. Well regulated meant well trained, well versed, and in good working order. It had absolutely zilch to do with a government ordered standing army, especially considering that the founders mistrusted standing armies. If the people aren't 'well-regulated', whos fault is that? If you're not well regulated, that is your fault.

I'm not getting away with anything because nothing of what I said is circumspect. If you'd read the actual historical documents like the federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, and the constitutional convention documents, you'd know what I was saying is completely truthful. I'm not 'blowing through' any clause whatsoever and am not claiming that it is irrelevant. Can you show me one single shred of evidence from the founders era that indicates that the 'well-regulated militia' meant anything other than able bodied citizens?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 00 : 02-----
What do we show up with when we need to become soldiers?

Scalia, in writing for the majority opinion that ruled the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, noted that the ruling does not mean that 2nd amendment rights cant be limited or restricted.
But I cant believe we are having another discussion about the 2nd amendment again...rehashing the same old arguments for and against.

I would like to see the discussion focus on the tactics of the NRA of spreading false and misleading information that led the OP to suggest that "If you go by Obama's voting record, he is as anti-gun as they come."

Obama can't amend the Constitution. Obama can't establish legal precedence. If you're scared about guns, you're looking in the wrong place for an antagonist.

If you look at recent polls, a majority of Americans support an individual's right to own guns....with reasonable gun control measures and restrictions, while opposing an outright ban....much like Obama.

Guns

That presents a problem for the NRA, which might explain their tactics of vilifying any elected official or candidate who supports any level of gun control.

Obamas Illinois state senate record clearly shows that he is totally anti-gun. Do you think the NRA looked at a black politician and surreptitiously said 'lets give him an F'???

The NRA is being totally honest when they talk about his voting record, as it stands in Illinois. Obamas own words before and after Heller clearly show that he's paying lip service to which ever camp he needs to be in at the time. 'what works in cheyenne doesn't work in chicago'???? If anything, chicago is in need of more guns in the right hands, not more gun laws to prevent citizens from defending their homes.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 14 : 09-----
while I pay very little attention to what the NRA has to really say, the majority of americans that support 'reasonable' gun control show themselves to be more afraid of what their fellow americans COULD do instead of what actual criminals ARE doing.

the NRA chose to go far right (politically) with an all-or-nothing approach to gun rights, and now that the presidency (and much of the populace) is veering away from that stance, the NRA will suffer.

Remember the folks stocking up on generators and water for the disaster that was going to happen for T2K? They've moved on to guns for the Obama administration.

Obama is inheriting 2 wars, an economy that is in the toilet, and is on record as wanting to fix health care as a priority. He'll never get around to gun legislation, even if he wanted to.

Most objective interpretations of Obama's record in IL that I have seen would express it differently...that Obama has consistently supported local/state autonomy to enact their own measures that can withstand a constitutional test...and reasonable federal restrictions.

Positions held by a majority of Americans.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 22 : 34-----
You're right to some extent...I am more afraid of a kid accidentally shooting a friend while playing with a gun in his house or a spouse shooting his/her partner after an emotional confrontation because a gun is handy than I am of a criminal entering the house and shooting someone.

But on the other hand, your conclusion is an ignorant generalization.

perhaps you'll take the time to explain the A rated democrats from the last two election cycles then?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 34 : 44-----
This is not possible given the State of Illinois constitution and home rule authority. No village/town, or city can have ANY gun law that is less strict than state law, but a locality can implement a gun law that is more strict than state law. If a state senator votes to implement strict gun laws which would prevent localities from having looser laws, he is not supporting local autonomy.


given your statement directly above, how in the hell is that ignorant then?

Didnt Obama vote against the state law that would have provided a loophole to a local ordinance? Isnt that supporting local autonomy?


I was speaking for myself..I dont represent the American people and I have no idea how many would agree with my example.

The ignorance is in the generalization.... "that the majority of americans that support 'reasonable' gun control show themselves to be more afraid of what their fellow americans COULD do instead of what actual criminals ARE doing.". I would love to see the data.

And even if you have the facts to support your conclusion.....whats wrong with Americans supporting or opposing gun control for reasons that differ from yours?

Guns (and other arms). Try to keep up here. :)

In a very disadvantaged sort of way, yes. What if there was a locality that wanted to allow it's citizens to own machine guns in Illinois? Would Obama have voted for that?

From what i've seen, just on here even, my generalization has proven true. Some examples....

1) why shouldn't civilians own machine guns

2) why should 'assault weapons' be banned

3) who needs more than one gun? one gun a month?

So far, 'reasonable' gun control legislation affects only a single entity and that is the person that would abide by the law. The person who doesn't give a damn about the law isn't affected by it until AFTER he/she commits the crime and possibly is caught. Tell me what is 'reasonable' about gun control laws that the criminal is not going to abide by?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 50 : 52-----
this doesn't square with part of your last comment

so how do you differentiate the arms that the people can own and bear without being infringed (that 'shall not be infringed' part is kind of important also) and still prevent the 'blank check' on firearms ownership?

The "right" is tied to the "well-regulated militia," which is tied to the "security of a free state." If a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state, "blank cheques" probably aren't a good idea.

So you basically agree that in the case of that one vote in IL for which he has been vilified by the NRA crowd, Obama supported local autonomy, which has been his position of record.

Extending that to a hypothetical is disingenuous.

I did not say that. I used but one example.

NRA double speak :)

That 'right' is not tied to membership in the militia. The amendment says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,therefore the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the people are the militia and that well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then the people shall not have their right to arms infringed.

If the militia is no longer well regulated, the right does not go away, it just means that the state is less secure.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 04 : 13-----
kind of like your 'objective' interpretation of Obamas gun voting record. :thumbsup: