Have Obama and Clinton really shut up about gun control?

[johnbraun]

I say this because I thought that Clinton and Obama were rabid gun controllers (see their past history), but in the debate transcripts, their websites, all public appearances and speeches, and everything that I can find, they seem to just be supporting rational things like background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and felons - both of which virtually all gun owners support. They seem to have completely dropped any support for the infringements that we Dems know will cause them to lose.

Are Obama and Clinton on record anywhere during their presidential runs as supporting things like the Assault Weapons ban, national registration of firearms, semi-auto bans, handgun bans, .50BMG bans, et al.?

Could it be that they've actually understood that (ed.) gun control causes Dems to lose, as Bill Clinton and the 1996 platform stated?

If so, I see a lot of gun owning Dems coming back from the wilderness!

[xchrom]

1. gun bigotry!?!

:rofl:

[johnbraun]

3. Yep. Here's the definition.

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike.

Emphasis on "irrational".

[madinmaryland]

5. Let's see...

Irrational - No
Suspicion - Yes
Hatred - No (except maybe for Wayne LaPierre)
Group - NRA
Race - No
Religion - No
Intolerance - No
Prejudice - No

[madinmaryland]

2. Not as bad as the "gun-control" bigotry that I see here.

[tularetom]

4. I must be a radical gun owner

I don't have a huge problem with unrestricted ownership of any type of firearm for anybody. I don't think any Democrat will propose these restrictions and if they do, they won't be successful.

What I do fear is the imposition of martial law by some authoritarian republican administration and suspension of the entire constitution including the second amendment thereto.

So I don't give a shit what Clinton and/or Obama think about the 2nd amendment. What I am happy for is that they respect the constitution.

There are other amendments that right now are in deeper shit than the 2nd. Like the 4th.

[madinmaryland]

6. Well said.

And if congress actually passes any gun legislation, it will be so watered down, that it won't do much if anything.

[johnbraun]

7. The 2nd is part of the Constitution.

"So I don't give a shit what Clinton and/or Obama think about the 2nd amendment."

Lots of gun owning Dems do. Like me. And I'm interested to see if Obama/Clinton have backed off from gun control.

[tularetom]

8. So you aren't concerned that McCain might declare martial law

and suspend the entire constitution, including the second amendment, and use that authority to seize guns from all private owners?

[johnbraun]

9. I and a lot of other Dems wouldn't vote for McPain anyway.

But I am interested to see if Obama and Clinton will represent me. If they do, I will vote for them. If not, I will not vote for a presidential candidate.

[sergeiAK]

12. I think you might be a wee bit paranoid here.

Outside of an actual, military, invasion of the mainland US, I cannot see any president, from the most neo-con Republican to the most Socialist Democrat imposing Martial Law on the US.

McCain is bad, but he's not a dictator. Bush is bad, but not a dictator. Saying things like this make you look like a lunatic on the level of the freepers.

[Boomer 50]

10. If we lose the 2nd.....

then what means do we have to ensure that all of the other Amendments are secure from violation? None. Without the right to keep and bear arms, we don't have any teeth or claws to tell the Government, Republican or Democrat, to leave our rights and freedoms alone.

[tularetom]

11. Paranoid NRA bullshit

If you lose the 4th amendment the 2nd ain't worth shit. The bush administrationt is not afraid of you or me because we have a few fireaarms. If they can snoop on your phone conversations they can take your guns. What you want to make sure of is that they don't do either. and the republicans are a lot more likely to do so.

[gorfle]

13. Untrue...

If they can snoop on your phone conversations they can take your guns.

This is a common argument from the anti-gun crowd. When presented with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is about providing the tools to the people to overthrow a tyrannical government, the anti-gun crowd is quick to say, "Your average citizen with his rifle will be no match against the modern military of the United States."

I say there are many historical examples of numerically and technologically inferior fighters successfully resisting an oppressor. Vietnam is a classic example. So is Mogadishu. Iraq will probably prove the be so as well.

An insurrection here at home would have other "advantages" in its favor. First of all, the troops brought in to suppress it would not be fighting against some unknown foreign adversary - they would be fighting regular Americans just like themselves. This would likely cause a moral problem within the regular ranks. Further, an insurrection here on our home turf would have drastic economic consequences that would strike directly at the ability of the government to sustain its oppression, by eroding its tax base.

Of course, having an armed populace is no guarantee of success in repelling an oppressive government. Apathy is a far greater problem than lack of arms. But lack of arms will certainly make the job much tougher, should the unfortunate day ever come where they are required.

[Spoonman]

22. You left out the biggest and best example

Afghanistan Vs. Russia

[ac2007]

14. Wrong

Loss of the 4th with the 2nd in place when they come to seize you, your family or your property on trumped-up charges, you can shoot back. The jackbooted thugs under State's order suddenly become VERY skittish about banging down the door when they stand a really good chance coming back out that door feet first in a body bag.

It is estimated perhaps 10% of gun owners are of the "cold, dead hands" variety. Of them, perhaps a third really mean it. That would be several hundred thousand individuals who would see such actions by an out-of-control government as a sign that it was time to press the reset button and would be the first to do so. They would outnumber the police and even if the National Guard was called out, the casualties would be enormous.

It isn't the number of firearms; it's how they're used. To take guns means they have to go where the guns are stored to seize them and generally, where there are guns, there's ammo. And these folks smashing down the doors would likely be facing rifles, not pistols or shotguns.

It's one thing when the SWAT team overwhelms folks. But as the body count piles up, word will get out that seizing arms even if declared illegal by the government would be a very expensive proposition.

The 2nd Amendment is the one that defends all the others. The only way, long-term, you would be able to destroy the 1st, 4th and 5th will be to eliminate the 2nd completely. In the end, those acting in such a manner to fight back would likely lose but the cost to the government acting out-of-control would likely not survive the experience either.

It isn't a "few" firearms either. 270-300 million arms. On average, each gun owner owns 3-4 guns each using simple math. That is an enormous amount of firepower. That is more guns than the military and police put together by almost two orders of magnitude.

[tularetom]

16. I agree with almost everything you say

The act of physically taking arms from 120 million households would be almost an impossibility. From my standpoint, they'd have to work awfully hard to find and extract my guns. It would be a bigger and potentially more costly task than any government is likely to undertake.

So what the fuck are these people so scared of? If the Democrats want to "grab your guns", so what? You make a very good argument for why they'll never get away with it. Why spend your life frightened if you have the ability to fight back?

I'm not part of the "gun control group". I'm a lifelong hunter and target shooter. All I'm saying is, if you want to be afraid of the government go right ahead. You have less to fear from Democrats who some of whom advocate some limits to gun ownership than from Republicans some of whom want to do away with the constitution.

[sergeiAK]

19. You mean Democrats like Feinstein?

Of "turn them in" fame? I'm not so certain.

[tularetom]

20. You're afraid of Feinstein?

Dude she's like 80 years old and nobody agrees with her. She ain't gonna take your guns. She won't even be in the Senate after the next election. She and hubby have already stolen all they need through war profiteering.

If you're scared of her there ain't enough guns in the fuckin world to make you feel safe.

[sergeiAK]

21. Agreed, which is why people like Schumer have taken over

Fun Fact of the day: Feinstein has a concealed carry permit and carries a revolver, while denying the need for anyone else to do so.

[Boomer 50]

23. Because we shouldn't have to worry

Anyone, no matter what political affiliation they may be attached to that wants to take guns should be viewed with concern and distrust. Gun control isn't and never has been about controlling crime, it's a population control measure to keep us from saying "NO".

When people make it their life goal to try to ban guns, take guns, and bar people from having a means to self defense, they are either mentally insane, criminal, or tyranical. Take you pick.

I find it deeply offensive that I have to continuiously fight to retain a right that NO ONE has the right or authority to deny me. I find it offensive that there are people out there who think they have the right to deny me my rights. Those people don't give a damn about my safety, the safety of my family or anything else because they can't see beyond their misguided stupidity and greed.

I've fought for a long time to keep this issue from becoming violent. I'm getting tired of it. Gun control fanatics push for laws and regulations without any regard to what side effects their ideas may bring about. They don't think about the physical problems with some of their "firearm safety" crap and how imprinting cartridges or this or that pose a significant physical danger. These people are NOT qualified to dictate laws regarding the mechanical properties of firearms and SHOULD NOT do so.

I want to puke when I hear people try to reword the 2nd out of existance. It's an individual CIVIL right, deal with it. Our last hope is that SCOTUS will do the right thing and put the issue to rest once and for all.

[gorfle]

15. The Democratic Party Stance on Gun Control

I am of two minds on this issue.

I tend to believe that the Democratic Party is mostly being silent on this and other issues, like the War in Iraq, because they can. The Republican Party is in full meltdown. Most Republicans are tired of the war, and are either pissed because the war is not being pressed harshly enough or they see it as a giant welfare program for Iraqis. The Democrats thus don't need to do anything to win the election. They certainly don't need to float anything controversial - they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I believe that when they win the presidential election, and thus control both Congress and the Presidency, then we may see some "true colors" moments when it comes to gun control and the war in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that they risk whatever they float being vetoed by the current President.

On the other hand, I hope that the lessons learned about how they lost the Congress the last time as a result of gun control legislation will not be forgotten.

I've been a life-long Republican voter until the last election, when I voted straight Democratic. I will do it again this election, because I believe we have suffered drastically under the last 8 years of Republican leadership to the point where I am willing to risk the 2nd Amendment issue for a while. I feel this is a reasonable risk because of the lack of drum-beating on this issue by the Democrats as of late, plus the conservative justices that are in place, plus the continuing wave of pro-gun and concealed-carry legislation we have enjoyed. If the Heller case goes as I hope, I will be even more comfortable with this risk.

Of course if, once in complete control of Congress and the Presidency, the Democratic Party resumes an anti-gun stance, I will have to reconsider my loyalties once again.

[johnbraun]

17. This is a good point.

IMHO this is what lost us Dems the 2004 election - Kerry could just not SHUT UP about assault weapon bans and let Bush just trip over himself.

Instead Kerry came off the campaign trail to vote for the AWB renewal. A lot of gun owners who otherwise would have voted Dem stayed home after that one.

[jody]

18. And the AWB Kerry voted for gave the attorney general unilateral authority to ban all semi-automatic

firearms including the popular Remington model 1100.

[jmg257]

24. Maybe they realized they take an oath to support the constitution?

And because it would be their job to execute the laws enacted under it?

We ALL KNOW that the 2nd means what it says.

The Constitution must be be upheld, especially by the executives sworn to preserve, protect & defend it. They also must support and execute the laws enacted under the constitution. One of those laws says this:



"(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."


and another, this:


"``Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law

``(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.--(1) The
President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in
Federal service, to--
...
``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such
insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution
and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable,
fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or"




The individual right to keep and bear arms must be secured.
Gun control is a...non-issue for the federal govt and the President.