Obama supports individual gun rights

[ckramer]

Source: YN

MILWAUKEE - Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AidZz9NGcc1eeS.9fk.weemyFz4D

---

What's up with Obama??????

[brentspeak]

Mr. Political Cliche strikes again

I voted for Obama in the NJ primary, but not with much enthusiasm.

[dogfacedboy]

77. Lemme guess. You're a Hillary Bush supporter. n/t

[brentspeak]

82. You guessed wrong, Charlie.

Look up my posts.

[Alexander]

87. He probably did, which is why he guessed that way.

:rofl:

[Skittles]

152. they always assume that

it's part of the worship sickness

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. He's reflecting the opinion of many Americans

simply banning guns owned by individuals will not stop gun violence. One thing that would greatly help stop gun violence and other forms of violence is an increase in funding for mental health services.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I don't know! This is hugh and series!!11!! Sounds like he supports individual gun rights!!!11!1!

[Megahurtz]

157. Rofl!

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

3. This was said in April 07, so it's not LBN:

http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html

Obama: "It's early to make a full assessment on how this changes our politics and the public mood. I think all of us are still just overwhelmed with grief for the families and for Virginia Tech and obviously people here remember what happened at the university and how painful it can be (a reference to the shootings at the University of Iowa). I do think that the evidence so far at least indicates that you've got a young man who was mentally deranged, was identified as such, was temporarily committed and was still able to obtain handguns and so one critical question is, 'What happened to our background check system? Why did it fail?' and it seems like we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on making that background system, background check system work. The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips. I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family. It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."

[IndianaGreen]

4. The Constitution guarantees private ownership of firearms

The states are free to regulate it as long as they don't infringe on the fundamental right to bear arms.

Obama is saying nothing different from what John Kerry and Al Gore have said.

[spag68]

5. No it doesn't

[AZ Criminal JD]

6. Yes it does

[Phx_Dem]

10. Link

IN GENERAL
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action
with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and
transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially
curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by
the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/020.pdf

[slackmaster]

18. Argue all you want about whether the 2nd Amendment protects that right. The 9th surely does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Game, set, match.

:toast:

[Phx_Dem]

25. Your "right to bear arms" is granted through the 10th amend.

RESERVED POWERS

TENTH AMENDMENT

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/028.pdf

US vs. Lopez addressed the argument that the 9th protected gun ownership, the Rehnquist court decided that it was not applicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

[slackmaster]

29. No, the Constitution and Bill of rights do not "grant" rights

Those documents set the scope and basic structure of the government, and divide certain powers between the federal government and the states. In our system ALL rights exist except those that have been curtailed through due process of law. They are considered to have been already granted by default. Or by a supreme being, or nature, or whatever, but the language clearly and repeatedly shows that the right to keep and bear arms and all the others were generally understood to exist.

People have the RIGHT to bear arms,

States have the POWER to regulate the peoples' right to bear arms.

US vs. Lopez addressed the argument that the 9th protected gun ownership, the Rehnquist court decided that it was not applicable.

Yes, and the US lost the case anyway.

[Paladin]

64. Thank You, Chief Justice Slackmaster (n/t)

[Kolesar]

108. My two murdered classmates don't feel very free

They feel very cold.

[AZ Criminal JD]

68. You may think the courts are the only method of determining your rights

But I don't. But since you do the Supreme Court will be making a decision on the Second Amendment soon. They are hearing the DC gun ban case and will be hearing oral arguments in mid-March. We shall see what they decide.

[-..__...]

39. The Solicter General of the United States disagrees with you.

As does 55 Senators, 250 members of the House of Representatives, the AGs for 31 states, 126 woman state legislators and academics, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons,...

Yep, they're all wrong but you're right.

[BadgerLaw2010]

91. Yes it does. You do understand what the Bill of Rights is, right?

The Bill of Rights are "government may not take away these pre-existing rights" provisions, *not* provisions that grant rights. They are written that way, and the historical context makes it obvious why.

There is a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

[Paladin]

92. What I Understand Is, You're Not A Supreme Court Justice

You're indulging in the usual gun radical's wishful thinking, rather than anything grounded in for-real constitutional law. How about we all wait for that big new Supreme Court case on the 2nd to be decided? Chances are, Fat Tony Scalia and his surly hand puppet, Clarence Thomas, are going to give your side a victory---but you never can tell.....

[beevul]

99. Hes right, Paladin.

The framers actually left instructions HOW the bill of rights were to be interpreted. Yes. They really did.

Here they are - the preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.


Now, you can sit here and decree that its all meaningless unless or until a "supreme court justice" says so, or you can attempt however poorly and unsuccessfully to say that the preamble of the bill of rights means something other than what it so clearly and unmistakeably does (as your ilk frequently does with the second amendment), but its not going to get you anywhere.


Anyone with so much as a shred of reading comprehension will have no trouble reading and understanding the crystal clear intent, purpose, and function of the bill of rights. As long as they don't have any prejudices obstructing thier view, that is.

[Recursion]

120. The 9th Amendment is the clearest statement of that

And one of the most-overlooked parts of the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This, incidentally, is the first and only smackdown required when a Freeper denies the existence of a right to privacy.

[Paladin]

135. That's Just Not Good Enough

If we're talking about gun legalities, I'll be damned if I'll substitute a gun militant's speculation for a four-corners opinion from a court of record. We're supposed to have such an opinion from the Supreme Court in a few weeks; let's all hold our water until then.

And the notion that having "a shred of reading comprehension" is all that's required to nail the exact meaning and intention of the Bill Of Rights is so breathtakingly naive, I barely know how to address it. Let's just say that such a simplistic concept would be dismissed out of hand by every constitutional scholar in the country. Kind of like those threads down in the Gun Dungeon which start out talking about how simple and easy-to-understand the Second Amendment is---followed by a hundred-post shit slinging contest by irate gun obsessives, determined to have their own wishful thinking prevail....

[beevul]

137. Of course it isn't...

"And the notion that having "a shred of reading comprehension" is all that's required to nail the exact meaning and intention of the Bill Of Rights is so breathtakingly naive, I barely know how to address it. Let's just say that such a simplistic concept would be dismissed out of hand by every constitutional scholar in the country."


You didn't even so much as comment on this:

The preamble to the bill of rights

"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Why might that be?


You can't claim that its a linguistically difficult passage to read or comprehend.

You can't claim it means something other that what it quite clearly does.


"If we're talking about gun legalities, I'll be damned if I'll substitute a gun militant's speculation for a four-corners opinion from a court of record."


You wont be happy unless and until a supreme court decision comes along, and goes...your way.


Me, I dont need a court telling me what the above passage means. Its is unequivocally and unambiguously clear.

[Paladin]

138. That's Just Sad

Let me let you down as easily as I can on this: Go to your nearest law school, and find the student book store nearby. Thumb through a case book on constitutional law and then tell me that the Bill Of Rights---the meaty, adjudicated parts, not the Goddamned preamble---are easy to interpret. Don't expect me to be a very receptive audience; I studied Con Law on both graduate and post-graduate levels in college, and I'm well acquainted with the complexities involved.

And if you want to be satisfied with your own interpretation of the law, be my guest. Enjoy your superiority complex at my expense; I'm certainly going to enjoy the one you're given me....

[beevul]

140. Translation...

"Let me let you down as easily as I can on this: Go to your nearest law school, and find the student book store nearby. Thumb through a case book on constitutional law and then tell me that the Bill Of Rights---the meaty, adjudicated parts, not the Goddamned preamble---are easy to interpret. Don't expect me to be a very receptive audience; I studied Con Law on both graduate and post-graduate levels in college, and I'm well acquainted with the complexities involved."

Translation:

"You don't know what your talking about UNLESS you have been to school for such things, as the bill of rights just isn't meant for the "average joe" to understand. Yes the Preamble makes perfectly clear what light the BOR be read and interpreted in, but I just can't admit that."


Um...yeah ok.


The preamble to the BOR makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR what the purpose of the bill of rights is and how it functions. And, while you say alot of things, I don't see you disputing that. That would be because you haven't disputed that.


Go ahead. If you think the preamble means something else, by all means take a position and support it, rather than being a jerk and using alot of words to say almost nothing.


If not, simply concede that it means what it SAYS it means.


I wont hold my breath waiting for iether to happen.

[Paladin]

150. That's Just Sad (Part II)

If that's the best you can do in "translating" my comments, I doubt you'll do very well in "translating" the Bill of Rights (particularly if the only part you seem interested in is the Preamble).....

[beevul]

153. Once again...

I don't see you saying the preamble says anything to the contrary.



Whoda thunk it.

[Scout]

114. "Fat Tony Scalia and his surly hand puppet, Clarence Thomas"

thank you very much for that imagery!

:rofl:

[Paladin]

136. You're Most Welcome (n/t)

[closeupready]

160. Yes, it does.

n/t

[Xenotime]

45. Not true. the people of the militia have the right.

[Recursion]

103. The militia is all males age 17 to 45 and all women in the uniformed services

Check out the US Code some time

[lanlady]

97. it does no such thing

The right to bear arms is granted in the context of taking part in a militia. The Constitution does not grant private ownership of guns or anything else.

[beevul]

100. Um...

"The right to bear arms is granted in the context of taking part in a militia. The Constitution does not grant private ownership of guns or anything else."


The bill of rights does not grant rights or anything else. It affirms them through restrictions on governmental power. In this case, that restriction being the "right of the people...shall not be infringed".

Read for yourself:

The preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

It says so explicitly in the preamble.

[BobbyVan]

7. Barack is way off base here

He sounds just like a 'pubbie on this one. The 2nd Amendment is totally outdated, and if he believes that parts of the Constitution are "living", then others, like the "2nd Amendment", should be allowed to die.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Who decides which parts are 'totally outdated?'

This guy:



???

[Seeking Serenity]

12. I was just gonna say

I'm not too hip on folk who decide for themselves which parts of the Constitution are "outdated." We've seen what's happened with one dude who thought the Fourth Amendment was so overrated.

Go, Obama!

[Kolesar]

16. He chopped a corner off of "habeas corpus" ... eom

[Hugabear]

11. They didn't have semiautomatic assault rifles in the 18th century

The 2nd Amendment needs to be re-visited, just like we did with the Prohibition amendment.

[Seeking Serenity]

13. Then do it the proper way

the way they did with the 18th Amendment.

I'd oppose it, but at least it would be in the proper constitutional manner.

[razors edge]

22. But they did have cannons,

big ones, and if you could afford one there was no law against it.

Would you be the one knocking on doors to confiscate the guns, or would you leave that to someone else, the way chicken-hawks fight wars?

[fascisthunter]

30. Yeah... Let People Buy Cannons

:crazy:

[razors edge]

35. One 20mm cannon, coming up....

[zanne]

125. You can make this a poster for your room...

And maybe you could get a teddy bear carrying a gun, too.

[slackmaster]

38. It never ceases to amaze me how little most people know about what you actually can do legally

Muzzle-loading cannons are perfectly legal, in all states AFAIK.

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/default.php?cPath=22_106_665&osCsid=1513cae7b3a2f2b75ca5d02d6d859446

[-..__...]

40. Why not?

We already can...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6_vufc1ns

[boilinmad]

52. I would....

....VOLUNTEER to go door to door to confiscate guns, because, GUNS FUCKING SUCK

[Jack_DeLeon]

55. I would expect you or anyone attempting that...

to either have a short lifespan, be turn away empty handed, or to only be successful through use of force yourself.

Didnt they teach you history in School? Didnt you learn about Lexington and Concord?

I dont care who you are but IMO theft of private property even when backed by the government is wrong.

[razors edge]

60. So do chest wounds.

Not that I advocate such a response, but some will, and thats what you would be up against.

Personally, I would be on my way back to the mountains by that point, to let the city dwellers work their problems out for themselves.

[NutmegYankee]

78. You going to wear a nice brown shirt and jack boots while doing it?

WTF?

[Lance_Boyle]

155. I think you'd be more successful 'confiscating' hot slugs

with that approach.

[Thothmes]

28. No internet, or radio either

Do we re-write the first also.

[-..__...]

43. Perfect example of why bans and prohibitions don't work.

Besides... the 18th amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights.

You enter that particular Constitutional territory and it's an entirely different ball game.

[beevul]

101. They didn't have internet in the 18th century iether.

Or television, or radio, or...


Now you were saying?

[Recursion]

104. Assault rifles are not semi-automatic

Assault rifles are specifically those capable of selective automatic fire.

You may be confusing assault rifles with assault weapons.

[benEzra]

164. Rifles are IRRELEVANT to the crime picture in the United States.

They didn't have semiautomatic assault rifles in the 18th century

The 2nd Amendment needs to be re-visited, just like we did with the Prohibition amendment.

Rifles are irrelevant to the crime picture in the United States; they rank dead last in the FBI murder statistics, not only behind blunt objects, knives, and shotguns, but even behind shoes and bare hands.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

And that's for all rifles combined, not just small-caliber rifles with modern styling (aka "assault weapons"). They're not a crime problem and never have been. They do make for great fundraising for the repubs at the Brady Campaign, though...

BTW, "semiautomatic assault rifle" is an oxymoron. Assault rifles are by definition selective-fire, and are tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (possession outside police/military duty without Federal authorization is a 10-year Federal felony). You're thinking of "assault weapons," which is Bradyite-speak for non-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

[Xenotime]

46. EXACTLY! Isn't there anyone who is going to stand up to these gun nuts?

[dogfacedboy]

80. I agree that it's outdated, but for the time being, it's still there.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the support would be out there to amend or repeal it.
However, I believe that a huge push for State's Rights on this matter would work.
What's good for the outlands isn't necessarily good for large metropolitan areas.
Guns in say, Montana--generally not a problem. Guns in Chicago, New York, or LA--HUGE problem.

[benEzra]

94. Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies. (n/t)

[humbled_opinion]

116. Guns don't kill people... People kill people...n/t

[zanne]

117. Is the first amendement still alive?

In order to stage a protest, a permit must be obtained first, then you may be contained in a "First Amendment Zone". We are also not allowed to yell "fire" in a theater.

There are limits on every amendment, but the gun nuts don't want any limits on their sacred second amendment.

[Recursion]

121. We've had limits for over 70 years

Since 1934, the "gun nuts" have been perfectly happy with the provisions of the National Firearms Act which limit what weapons are available for general civilian ownership.

This sounds flippant, but the problem here is really the ignorance of people who have little to no experience with guns. People who think that a gun that looks like this



is more powerful than, or fires faster than, or is in some intangible way simply inherently more dangerous than a gun that looks like this



This is not the case, but enough of the country thinks it is the case that we keep engaging in politically suicidal attempts at restrictions of gun rights.

Back to my original point, since 1936 we have had a very, very effective gun control framework. If you think the body of weapons available for general civilian ownership needs to be restricted, by all means make your case, and let's write a new firearms act. What bothers me is that you seem to be so passionate about this issue, but I seriously doubt you even know what the restrictions of the 1934 act are.

Let me tell you some common quotes that serve as a red flag to me that someone doesn't really understand the issue:

1) "Should everyone be able to buy a (rocket launcher | uzi | AK-47 | nuclear device | etc.)?"

This is the most common and most easy to slap down. No, it is not the case that "everyone" should be able to buy any of those. Rocket launchers, uzi's, and AK-47's are nearly impossible to legally obtain. They require an extensive background check, permission of local law enforcement, and a $200 tax stamp.

In addition, the national registry for these weapons has been closed since 1986, so you can only buy one currently legally owned by somebody. As a result, the ones that are in the US cost tens of thousands of dollars.

When I explain this to people, I normally get question number 2:

2) "Then what was the assault weapons ban about?"

It was about handing control of Congress to the Republicans. That's why Gingrich steered it through committee. Its essential provisions were that if you imported or manufactured a civilian rifle that had an exterior casing that looks like an AK-47 or M-16, you could not give it a bayonet lug. Furthermore, some guns had to be sold under different brand names.

Yes, I'm serious. That was, apparently, worth losing Congress over.

This leads to,

3) "But aren't these civilian look-a-likes trivially easy to convert to automatic weapons?"

Not outside of a "Law & Order" script. You have to build a new machine gun and then put it inside the casing. But if you can already build a new machine gun, making your own chassis is really not much of a challenge. Again, this sounds flippant, but the big problem is that gun policy is being written by people who just don't know much about guns.

And finally, I get this one a lot:

4) "You can't use an M-16 to hunt deer; why do you need it?"

Several points here: first off, as I pointed out in 1) above, M-16's are almost impossible to obtain. There are civilian (one trigger pull = one shot) rifles that are shaped like M-16's. And it's true that these are poor choices for deer hunting: they're not remotely powerful enough. M-16-lookalikes fire a very small round (just like real M-16's) that does not have the power to take down a deer. They're pretty good for groundhogs and coyotes, but not anything much bigger.

And, at any rate, as I said upthread, hunting is not the issue with gun rights. The vast majority of gun owners don't hunt. The history of hunting rights in commonlaw and US law is complex, but the short version is there is no guaranteed right to hunt, not even on private land (this is one of the oldest and most complex subjects in commonlaw -- think of all the poaching statutes from England; even on private land, the King owned all of the deer, for instance).

[zanne]

124. Alot of gun nuts complain about those restrictions,dmesg.

If you've read any of the other gun threads on DU over the years, you know what I mean. The NRA has been chipping away at those restrictions for many years and with this administration, they succeeded in buying enough congresspeople to allow the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Which is just fine with most gun nuts on this board, who don't want any restrictions.

[Recursion]

126. Really? Who?

The NRA certainly isn't asking for a repeal of the NFA or a re-opening of the registry.

I think I have seen two people on DU suggesting the registry be re-opened.

they succeeded in buying enough congresspeople to allow the Assault Weapons Ban to expire

You didn't even read my post, apparently.

Tell me what you think the "assault weapons ban" did. And then tell me why you think that was a good law.

[zanne]

127. dmesg...You wouldn't be happy if I quoted it word for word..

The jig is up, gun toter. I know what kind of logic you use. It's useless to try to have a dialogue with you. Goodbye.

[Recursion]

129. No, let's talk about this

I've told you what the assault weapons ban did.

I'm asking you what you think it did.

You're angry that it expired. Fine; I'm angry about a lot of stuff that's happened in the past 8 years too.

What I'm interested in is finding out why you think a law that to me was manifestly stupid was a good idea. So what did you like about the assault weapons ban?

[zanne]

130. JUST SHOOT ME, dmesg. nt

[Recursion]

133. I prefer discourse, thanks

I want to know what you liked about the assault weapons ban, and why you think its expiration was a bad thing.

[zanne]

139. The AWB was a start; it was an EFFORT to do the right thing.

It was far from perfect; true. But it was better than sitting around with our thumbs up our asses and we could have improved upon it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

[beevul]

141. You still have not explained...

You still have not explained what you liked about the assault weapons ban, and why you think its expiration was a bad thing.


Is explaining those things too much to ask?

[Pavulon]

145. It was a joke and targeted weapons

that racked up less than KNIVES in FBI stats. Rifles are a tiny minority of total gun crimes.

It was a political stunt and it had a big cost.

[Lex Talionis]

156. Very good rebuttal post dmseg..

To bad you wasted all that time trying to explain it to these very wise people. Hey, I heard Kosovo just declared their Independence. Think the Serbs will let it go if the people give up their guns. We are about to see wither its better to be armed or not. As to the OP Obama has common sense, thats why he said it.

[doc03]

9. I saw a post on this forum last week that

showed a questionnaire Obama filled out stating he was in favor of confiscation of all handguns.

[bperci108]

31. Sounds like a GOP-created story...

Kind of like the ones that claimed Hillary murdered Vince Foster in his office and Bill was a homicidal coke-fiend and smuggler. :eyes:

Just the ticket to get Joe Six-Pack (who usually isn't smart or ambitious enough to check on the story's veracity) worked up into a frenzy for November.


Sorry--I smell a Repuke rat. :puke:

[Recursion]

128. While I'm not aware of actual confiscation proposals from Obama...

...he's been pretty clear in the past about wanting to ban all semi-automatic weapons. As I said in another thread, this is Kucinich's position too, and it's so far outside of what is nationally palatable that I simply have to HOPE (get it?) that he's serious about what he said in the OP.

[shenmue]

14. Another point on which he matches mainstream... Republicans.

:eyes:

[Seeking Serenity]

15. I hope you're not implying that mainstream Democrats believe the opposite.

This one sure doesn't.

When guns are outlawed, only the GOVERNMENT will have guns.

Let that one sink in for a moment.

[Kolesar]

17. Cleveland outlawed concealed weapons and the Ohio republicans overruled them

Would you want that?

[slackmaster]

19. State law trumping restrictive local ordinances? Sure I'm OK with that.

We have the same thing in California.

[Kolesar]

57. That's tyranny

and hypocrisy.

[slackmaster]

66. It depends entirely on your point of view

If your ox is getting gored, it's tyranny.

[Kolesar]

109. If you're son is getting shot, it is tyranny

And if the 'pukes are forcing RW gun policy down onto every city block, it is hypocrisy.

[Recursion]

107. Yes, if the local statute was in violation of citizens' rights

I don't know the particulars of the Cleveland ban, but if it was an outright ban on concealed carry in a concealed-carry state, then it was a pretty brazen violation.

[Kolesar]

110. Banning concealed firearms is reasonable gun regulation

At least it is reasonable in the civilized world. As for RW fantasy land...?

[dysfunctional press]

115. laws allowing conceal-carry generally lead to a decrease in violent crime against individuals.

and that's no fantasy- it's a fact.

[Kolesar]

149. Data?

[Recursion]

118. I don't find it "reasonable" at all

Concealed-carry holders have a lower crime rate than police officers.

Why are you willing to let police officers carry guns but not these people?

[frog92969]

27. Don't forget the criminals

Non-government criminals I mean.
They'll still have guns too.

[Critters2]

37. I'm sorry, but I, and everyone else in this area,

are too busy trying to let sink in that 5 young people died on a campus I walk at least once a month.

[Psephos]

41. In a gun-free zone n/t

[Critters2]

44. Obviously not gun-free enough! nt

[Recursion]

106. Then come up with a way to *actually* make it gun free, rather than...

...passing pointless "feel good" laws that disarm law-abiding people and are easily ignored by criminals.

[Critters2]

142. Obeying the laws which are in place and would have kept guns

out of the hands of this man. He was not legally qualified to own guns in Illinois. Someone fucked up and needs to be prosecuted.

[patrick t. cakes]

89. alcohol kills many students as well

cars too.:shrug:

[Paladin]

93. Alcohol? Cars? Who Gives A Shit?

If you're going to try to deflect attention from yet another slaughter in which guns were used, you'd better do a better job than that. We've come to expect a higher level of deception from our resident gun nuts. Get with the program....

[beevul]

148. You have slipped and allowed light to shine on the truth of your position.

"Alcohol? Cars? Who Gives A Shit?"


Deaths just aren't important to some people UNLESS they are gun deaths.



Own it, Paladin.

[Paladin]

151. That's Just Sad (Part III)

Another masterful "translation" job, I see.

Let me help you out, here. This is a little tricky, so pay attention: Look real, real carefully at the first phrase of my prior post. It reads as follows: "If you're going to try to deflect attention from yet another slaughter in which guns were used....". You see, my "who gives a shit" title was directed at gun militants using alcohol, cars, and all sorts of other things in a pathetic attempt to make people think about something other than guns in general, and the NIU bloodbath in particular. Can you grasp that? And by the way, I've made the same criticism on several other NIU-related threads in the last few days. And for your information, the last thing in the world that I feel about alcohol and automotive-related deaths is that they "just aren't important." I've lost too many friends, relatives and business associates to such causes not to care about them. No, your side is the one that clearly "owns it" in terms of not caring about gun-related deaths---you people have accepted such tragedies as NIU as an acceptable trade-off for your free-and-easy access to as many and as varied a selection of firearms as possible. There's daily proof of that sick attitude every day here at DU.

This is the last post I'm directing to you on this thread. There's just no challenge or satisfaction in trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man....

[beevul]

154. Thank you...

Thank you for the confirmation.

"Let me help you out, here. This is a little tricky, so pay attention: Look real, real carefully at the first phrase of my prior post. It reads as follows: "If you're going to try to deflect attention from yet another slaughter in which guns were used....". You see, my "who gives a shit" title was directed at gun militants using alcohol, cars, and all sorts of other things in a pathetic attempt to make people think about something other than guns in general, and the NIU bloodbath in particular. Can you grasp that? And by the way, I've made the same criticism on several other NIU-related threads in the last few days. And for your information, the last thing in the world that I feel about alcohol and automotive-related deaths is that they "just aren't important." I've lost too many friends, relatives and business associates to such causes not to care about them. No, your side is the one that clearly "owns it" in terms of not caring about gun-related deaths---you people have accepted such tragedies as NIU as an acceptable trade-off for your free-and-easy access to as many and as varied a selection of firearms as possible. There's daily proof of that sick attitude every day here at DU."


Oh, I know full well who your little tirade was directed at. I also know full well that you aren't trying to ban alcohol, that you don't say a peep here on DU about it, and that your only interest is gun deaths. You talk a good talk, but your actions speak louder than your words possibly could, and speak volumes about your agenda.You are right, we DO try to get people like you to think about other things besides gun deaths, particularly in cases like YOURS where gun deaths seem the only ones important. Its called perspective, and the operative suggestion here, and in those other threads , is to GET SOME.

You however make it perfectly crystal clear just how interested in perspective you are. And you accuse pro-gun supporters of not caring about gun deaths, while throwing out republican/brady talking points in the same breath?

You in your "refutation" (if anyone could even call it that), completely CONFIRM what I said in the first place. That being that some people just aren't interested in deaths unless theyre gun deaths.

Thanks much.

"Alcohol? Cars? Who Gives A Shit?"


Own it, Paladin

[Critters2]

143. The callousness of gun nuts never ceases to amaze.

These kids weren't at a drinking party. They were listening to an Oceanography lecture. But you think it's okay that the shooter could buy guns.

Dance on graves much?

[Pavulon]

144. While tragic

if I am killed in my car by a person who runs a stop sign and t bones me at 55mph we will not ban cars.

The person who killed me committed a crime and caused death. How does this differ?

If you want to argue quantity many more die is car accidents and once in a while they die in mass (bus wrecks, mass casualty events)

We should not ban guns, but address the root cause. In this case mental illness and a system that did not provide help to a person who needed it.

[Upfront]

20. Good

If he did not support gun rights as he outlined it, he would not get my vote nor would he win the general election.

[doc03]

21. That's a flip-flop a questionnaire Obama

filled out was posted on here a couple days ago. He said he was in favor of confiscation of all handguns. Here it is I found it:

Fact Check: Sen. Obama and Guns

2/2/2008 7:25:05 PM

Today, Sen. Obama went to Idaho to reassure voters there that he has consistently supported gun ownership, saying that he has "no intention of taking away folks' guns."

But the AP reported that in a 1996 questionnaire Sen. Obama said he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." (Read the questionnaire yourself HERE.)

Which one of Sen. Obama's positions do you think the Republican nominee will tout in the fall?

Here's the Questionnaire:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2...

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5693

[jody]

23. BO changes his position. He'll join the NRA next and go hunting with Cheney. n/t

[onehandle]

24. Guns are COOL!

Fuck YEAH!

This is change?

[Pavulon]

26. Bans don't work, Drug war sucks

supply side manipulation is a joke. can you find some weed? Yep and a hooker to deliver it.

Get real.

[AX10]

32. So what is his position then?

[hollowdweller]

33. Glad to see him coming around on the issue.

His previous statements on gun control would hurt him in rural areas more than racial prejudice would.

Maybe this will help him get elected and maybe the Dems can stay in office and balance the budget, get us back in a peace situation again, do something about health care and the right to organize.

[Honeycombe8]

61. He has not changed positions. He has always believed in individual's right to bear arms. nt

[DU Man]

73. Agreed.

[pipoman]

34. He knows that this one issue has needlessly cost Dems

more elections than any other single issue over the last 20 years. It cost Al and Kerry the Presidency.

[Critters2]

36. This "issue" cost 5 of his constituents their lives yesterday.

He should consider that.

[Pavulon]

48. NO a Man did that

He choose a method and caused the deaths of others. Mcveigh did it with a different set of legal things. However the intent is what makes guns, diesel oil and common chemicals go from inert to a method to kill people.

Address the intent, that is the key.

[pipoman]

51. IL has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country

The guns were legally acquired. This issue had nothing to do what so ever with this lunatic being homicidal...I suggest that a more plausible explanation for why this maniac did this was because of previous incidents and the resulting notoriety gained by the attacker. I think a more effective way to curtail these types of incidents is to take the fame out of them. It is time to pass legislation banning any news agency from reporting on these incidents. It would make us all safer.

[Critters2]

83. Actually, the guns were not legally acquired.

This man had received inpatient psych care. It is illegal in Illinois for anyone who has received inpatient psychiatric treatment to own a gun. I'm not sure why the media keep saying he legally acquired these guns, but he didn't. I'd like to know why they were sold to him. If the law had been obeyed, those students would not have been shot.

[benEzra]

95. Apparently the state screwed up his records, since he was cleared for a law enforcement position.

He was cleared to work as a correctional officer (prison guard) in the state of Indiana, which means he could have also become a police officer had he chosen to do so. Meaning, someone seriously screwed up his records. He was automatically disqualified from gun ownership, but his records did not reflect that.

[Kolesar]

112. If you want data on what the electorate thinks: Gore won by 500,000 votes

The Iraq War decided the previous election, not some RW fantasy issue.

[Paladin]

42. I Wonder How Persuasive This Will Be.......

....with our resident gun obsessives, 48% of whom are on record as being ready to vote Republican due to firearms issues?

Answer: Not very freaking persuasive

[Xenotime]

47. Allowing more people to carry guns doesn't make anyone safe!

[Jack_DeLeon]

56. Choice is a good thing...

If you choose not to own or carry a gun that is your choice. You choose to leave your safety and the safety of those you care about up to the random strangers called police.

I choose to take responsibility for my own safety, and to the extent possible for those I care about.

[KingOfLostSouls]

49. Good job for Obama, the Howard Dean position

another common sense position by obama that mirrors our parties chairman, Howard Dean.

taking guns away won't solve violence, people will just use knives or their hands or whatever.

violence has existed as long as humans have, get over it.

of course, I'm betting the anti-rights crowd attacking obama are the same ones who wanted to firebomb the japanese for harpooning a few stray whales...

[Kolesar]

58. firebomb the japanese ?? Why should anybody here listen to you?

[Critters2]

85. Yeah, this guy could've killed 5 students and wounded 16 more,

in a large lecture hall....with his hands. :eyes:

[Defends Reason]

50. To get elected

Obama knows he would not get elected without supporting gun rights.

[KingOfLostSouls]

53. I applaud obama for this

he's representing a common sense position represented by party chairman howard dean, while advocating the need to eradicate gun violence.

yet he's also making a non-issue into a non-issue. it takes away something small that republicans would make into a stupid thing in the general. republicans would devote the entire primary to "OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!" and try to distract people away from the real issues. kinda like, "AL GORE SAID HE INVENTED THE INTERNET!!!" and we all know the corporate MSM would go along with it

its smart campaigning and smart politics. as a biden supporter, I give him nothing but applause for this.

[Jack_DeLeon]

54. Too bad he opposes my right to own what he would call an "assault weapon."

I own an AK style rifle and unfortunately both he and Hillary would support and encourage a new assault weapon ban.

So I'm stuck voting against my own interests with both of them. I think the edge will go to Hillary though cause Obama said somethign to the effect of him would want to outlaw concealed carrying of a handgun nationwide. Hillary hasnt said anything going that far, and I do have a concealed handgun license.

[Gore Edwards]

59. Does anybody here know?

Does anybody here know that the U.S.Doj Position on the
individual right to bear arms was the interpretation of John
Ashcroft and was not the default position of the U.S. gov. It
exists only because John Ashcroft said so. Why do Admin Mods
let an entire subject be so sabotaged that they would render
it meaningless?

[maddezmom]

62. welcome to DU

:hi: Might want to check out the Gun Forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

[Paladin]

63. Well Said, G.E. (n/t)

[Paladin]

65. So If Obama Comes Out On Top, What Will You Do?

Vote Republican? Stay home on election day?

(Extra points awarded for an honest answer.)

[LifeIsSweet]

70. He's getting cockier and cockier every day

so if that continues, and he's nominated, I wont vote.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carrieyazel]

72. Also his past votes don't jibe with this. Has an F from the NRA.

So he sounds like he's pandering. And gun rights groups will come after him to back this up. (He can't).

And then he'll have to explain which side he favors in the Washington DC gun rights battle. Those who want to overturn the DC gun ban have primarily based their argument on the 'individual right'. Not the collective right.

He's not all that savvy.

[LifeIsSweet]

75. He's pandering for Texas votes

It's obvious this flip flop is to get votes in Texas. I posted about a new flip flop today regarding campaign funds but the thread was locked, not sure why. Seems him changing his mind is becoming more common. Making himself more centrist? Is this change or more of the same?

[Recursion]

105. Actually the Heller case is a bit more subtle than that

Heller is specifically agnostic on whether the right is individual or collective as regards the force of his argument (although he does assert it is individual); the point is that in either case the absolute handgun ban DC has, along with the requirement that long guns be kept in an inoperable condition, makes even a collective enjoyment of that right impossible.

[benEzra]

96. Half of gun owners are Dems and indies, and that is probably who he's concerned about. (n/t)

[Recursion]

119. Maybe it's time to re-post your "what now?" thread from 4 years ago? nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. so do I n/t

[Carrieyazel]

71. I doubt his voting record backs him up in any way, shape or form.

This is a lame, knee-jerk reaction from Obama. After the shootings, he must have felt he had to say something. That was dumb and shows a lack of politcal savvy. He says he backs an individual right, but he's voted for numerous gun-control initiatives, and has an F rating from the NRA.

Obama has blocked himself into a corner. His past will be used against him, and watch for the NRA to call him out soon for saying this.

[fshrink]

74. Oh well.

Possibly the most ridicule, archaic and vapid issue available. But what are you gonna do... Voters across party lines want their gungun or else.

[cbayer]

76. WAIT A MINUTE!! DID ANYONE EVEN OPEN THIS LINK??

It doesn't say anything of the kind. What the hell is going on here?

[LifeIsSweet]

79. Here is a link to the story

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/obama_5 :woohoo:

[cbayer]

81. I appreciate that. And here is a quote from linked article:

"Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns.

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

"The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said.

Campaigning in Ohio, Obama's rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton echoed Obama's comments.

"Obviously we have to first and foremost do everything we can to take reasonable steps to keep our children safe," she said. "And while safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights, we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang members and people with mental health problems."

[ElsewheresDaughter]

84. one of Obama's top adviser's is a Lobbyist for the NRA. ...

Why should he take their money when they WORK FOR HIS CAMPAIGN

Moses Mercado joined the Barack Obama presidential campaign team and already he's making waves.

The waves are being generated by Mercado's other line of work -- as a lobbyist with Ogilvy Government Relations who is registered to represent several dozen big-name clients, including the National Rifle Association, the Carlyle Group, the Blackstone Group, Monsanto, Pfizer Inc., United Health Group, Sempra Energy and Constellation Energy.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/28/mercado_mosk.html

[cbayer]

86. And when BS is called, they scurry like...

you fill in the blank.

[Alexander]

88. Good. We need to neutralize gun control as an argument.

[jasmine621]

90. "Do whatever it takes" would mean getting rid of guns.

Another pandering moment that gives no solutions.

[Recursion]

123. How would you propose to "get rid of guns"?

Seriously, are you actually talking about door-to-door searches and confiscation?

[goforit]

98. To keep the Gov't at bay. understandable.

[someone else]

102. Gun Control

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making
it tougher for sober people to own cars. 

[Kolesar]

111. Drunk drivers are not plotting to kill or maim somebody.

Why does your text have the "other" font?

[Recursion]

122. They manage to do it quite often, though

DUI deaths exceed gun deaths by an order of magnitude. A given car is more likely than a given gun to kill someone in this country (yes, I'm serious; yes, I'll dig up the numbers I ran on that if you don't believe me).

[Kolesar]

131. Firearms-owners kill people with intent

Well, some of them do. Drunk drivers are irresponsible. Big difference

Gun Control
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making
it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[Recursion]

132. Dead is dead

"I never saw a corpse ask how it got so cold"

[Kolesar]

134. Dumb is dumb

[dmallind]

162. The constant lies about DUI's are as annoying as constant lies about guns

I appreciate the efforts you go to to correct the misrepresentations of ill-informed gun controllers so please take it in that vein when I try to do the same for those "drunk driving" stats so often lied about.

MADD and other pressure groups claim 39% of road fatalities are "alcohol related" - or 16885 (so 43295 total car deaths can be extrapolated) (2005 data - not much of a shift in any recent year you choose though). This compares with 29,863 gun deaths. So DUI deaths even by pressure group stats do not equate to much more than half the gun deaths, let alone exceed them by an order of magnitude. Now sure only 12000 or so of those deaths from guns were murders so less if that's what you meant, but still not an order of magnitude by any stretch,

BUT there's a problem in that even as it stands.

This number comes from an officer checking the "HBD" box on the FARS form (Fatal Accident Reporting System). HBD stands for "Had been drinking or taking drugs" so right away even assuming perfect data we can see that "drunk driving" deaths include other drug users too. BUT it's far worse than that because there is absolutely NO requirement that this be proven or tested. Officers can see an empty bottle of wine in a recycling/deposit return bag, or a roach clip or a pill bottle and check HBD. I personally know an officer who checks that box regardless of circumstances for any fatality after midnight on weekends.

There's even worse to come:

1) Less than half the drivers in HBD accidents are even tested for alcohol at all, but are all included in "drunk driving" stats

2) When they ARE tested, over a third register BAC's well under the 0.08 threshold. The oft-ignored truth is that "alcohol related" includes ANY trace of alcohol, far far from anyone's definition of "drunk" and a BAC which can cbe achieved by a squirt of Chloraseptic hours before. So not all drunk drivers are drunk.

3) Even in MADD's wildest imaginings 60% of fatal car accidents involve no sign of any alcohol whatsoever. What causes these? Maintenance problems? Weather? Road conditions? Just bad luck and bad driving? Why is it assumed that these cannot happen, and in fact should not happen in exactly the same ratio, to drunk drivers? Yet the assumption is always drunk driver when present is sole root cause. So not all drunk fatalities are caused by drunkenness.

4) Can even truly shit faced drivers not be the victim of accidents caused by others? If a ratarsed co-ed manages to owlishly wobble up to a red light, fifteen mph under the speed limit and singing along to Garth Brooks in a convertible in 20 degree weather, then gets rearended by a caffeine soaked semi driver who was distracted because he dropped his Slim Jim, would it not have happened had she been a sober Methodist's minister's daughter on her way back from choir practice? So not all drunk drivbers are at fault.

5) That pedestrian thing again - if I'm doing the right thing (as I do) by walking home after a few beers, and get run over by the RWD poorly maintained unstable 15-passenger van carrying 23 rural church members who have never so much as sniffed a wine glass as it skids on the ice and crushes me before rolling over the highway bridge killing all of them too, guess what happens - 24 "drunk driving" fatalities. So not all drunk drivers are even drivers.

6) Even forgetting ALL the above, 75% of all "drunk driving" fatalities kill only the driver. Much like the majority of intentional gun deaths being suicides, the majority of real drunk driving mayhem hurts only the idiot in question. So not all drunk driving deaths are the "innocents" oft portrayed in teary-eyed emoptional appeals empty of facts.


So drunk driving deaths, as well as being really much lower than gun deaths, should really be called "deaths that may or may not have been caused or even contributed to by people who may or may not have been driving in circumstances where one person subjectively decided, usually without tests, they may have been impaired by some substance which may or may not have been alcohol, and where the driver in question was by far most often the only victim".


Oh and using MADD's own data, it's statistically likely that you could drive drunk every day of the week for about 3000 years before you kill someone - which 75% of the time will be you.

[Pavulon]

146. Depraved Indifference Murder

by breaking the law and driving intoxicated. You are responsible for the death you cause. Plus you committed another crime in the event that you caused the accident, say left of center.

300 a day die in cars and most are not accidents. They are manslaughter.

People talking on their fucking phones, messing with the radio, or otherwise fucking off while driving are AS RESPONSIBLE as a person who murders without pre planning.

[Kolesar]

113. Fixed the link and the article still does not say anything about gun violence

Nedra pulled a switch.
obama

[lancer78]

147. Good

take this issue off the table.

[MrsBrady]

158. if people go off their meds, they could be a danger to themselves and others....

that to me is the real issue here...

most of the stories we hear about shooters seem to have needed healthcare, meds, etc.

I don't think the problem here is guns as much as it is about health care issues....

the problem is with these drugs, is that they can cause violent side effects if you go off of them cold turkey.
It's not while they are ON the meds that they do this stuff, it's when they just STOP. Anybody who has dealt with anybody or has taken "brain chemistry" drugs know that you are not supposed to stop them once you start. And if you do stop, you should only taper off with the Dr's help.
Now, having said that....I would bet money on the fact that shooters cannot afford meds, don't have good insurance if any, and don't have access to proper care. I would totally bet that those kinds of issues are at play here.

Now personally, I don't have any hand guns, but we have several shotguns and 22 rifles. I don't really want to carry or own a handgun.
But I know people who do. My aunt has a permit to carry in Texas.

Taking guns away won't keep people from shooting other people. There has to be something deeper than that.
I mean, other nations have guns too...but nothing like the kind of violence we have here that's not an actual war.

I don't know if it's the heath care issue, or something else. I just don't think that it's all about the gun itself.
I guess to me it seems like if I drive a car, and were to hit someone...it's not the car's fault.

anyway, that's my opinion

[Infinite Hope]

159. Those aren't mutually exclusive principles. Good for him. That's what we believe out here in America

n/t

[saigon68]

161. Me too

[CTLawGuy]

163. hey so do I, with restrictions,

got a problem with that?