pageok
pageok
pageok
Obama and Gun Control:

His record isn't likely to win back the rural "pro-gun" voters who've fled to the Republicans in recent years, likely costing Gore the election in 2000. From the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999:

Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.

At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he's backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a "shot-free" millennium celebration.

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. [!!!]

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.

Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He's also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.

Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.

wekt:

He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.


Seems like Obama found a missing word in the Second Amendment: "the right of the _rich_ people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But poor people who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods, and thus who would seem to have great need to defend themselves against crime, are effectively prohibited from buying a handgun that they can afford.
2.18.2008 10:02pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials."

This is a good example of how poorly thought out his proposals are. How do you define a "Saturday Night Special?" Is it a good idea to ban this class of weapon assuming you can define it well enough to write legislation?

For those people who want to ban low caliber, poorly made handguns. Would you rather get shot with one of those or a more high quality weapon like a Glock? A poor quality gun might not discharge at all. If criminals find it harder to get handguns, won't they simply buy a shotgun, cut the barrel short, and then conceal it a shopping bag?

I would much rather criminals use junk handguns.
2.18.2008 10:09pm
Jacob (mail):
I'm confused. Why is the word "federal" used so much in an article about an Illinois State Senator?
2.18.2008 10:12pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home."

Does "securely" mean a gun safe? Again Obama seems to think that weapons are only for the well to do.
2.18.2008 10:12pm
DCP:

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park.


In a metropolitan area like Chicago wouldn't that effectively be an absolute ban on gun sales? Or I should say...legal gun sales.
2.18.2008 10:12pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Jacob, the article isn't very clear, but I assume it's because he was running against Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in the House.
2.18.2008 10:13pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
Interestingly, none of this info is available on Obama's campaign web site (I just checked). Even more interestingly, some of these policy ideas were on his web site a few months back....

Well, he may be charismatic, but he's just another corrupt politician when it comes to hiding his record when he thinks it might turn off some of the voters - plenty of Democrats, not to mention Republicans, own guns.
2.18.2008 10:16pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
DCP, that's why I highlighted it.
2.18.2008 10:18pm
Anonymouseducator (mail) (www):
For those people who want to ban low caliber, poorly made handguns. Would you rather get shot with one of those or a more high quality weapon like a Glock? A poor quality gun might not discharge at all. If criminals find it harder to get handguns, won't they simply buy a shotgun, cut the barrel short, and then conceal it a shopping bag?

I would much rather criminals use junk handguns.


Of course, all of this assumes that a ban will actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
2.18.2008 10:20pm
Mr. Liberal:
Hopefully the Supreme Court comes down hard on the side of an individual right, thereby taking the gun issue out of politics and thereby benefiting Democrats.

Why Democrats were willing to sacrifice so much on the gun issue is beyond me. Excessive gun control is both bad policy and bad politics.
2.18.2008 10:22pm
wekt:
I wonder what Obama will do if the Supreme Court faithfully interprets the Constitution in DC v. Heller. It would seem to be quite a convenient excuse to shift his opinion on the constitutionality of gun restrictions.

"Mr. Obama, do you support a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'?"
"Assault weapons continue to devastate our cities and are a scourge upon humanity, but unfortunately civilian possession is protected by the Second Amendment. As President, I would be required to uphold the Constitution, so I must veto any assault-weapon ban presented to me."

Does this seem possible, or am I just dreaming?
2.18.2008 10:22pm
Lasombra:
"Does this seem possible, or am I just dreaming?"

You dream

Obama would simply decry the decision and pledge to appoint Justices who would reinterpret the 2nd Amendment
2.18.2008 10:26pm
Bender (mail):
If he were lying about his gun control positions as much as Clinton, Gore, and Kerrey lied about theirs, the NRA would eventually love him. Unfortunately, Obama is far more honorable than prior Democrat contenders for the presidency and these are probably his true policy positions. Thanks for the information. Maybe I'll have to vote for McCain after all.
2.18.2008 10:37pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
According to some inside information I have from his campaign people, Obama is not a phony. To his credit, he believes what he says. Of course that's a real problem for some people. If you are hoping Obama will become centered after he's elected, then you had better vote for his opposition. What you see is what you will get.
2.18.2008 10:43pm
Truth Seeker:
Why Democrats were willing to sacrifice so much on the gun issue is beyond me. Excessive gun control is both bad policy and bad politics.

And you call yourself a Liberal?
2.18.2008 10:47pm
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):
he was on the board of the Joyce Foundation- bury your piece in the back yard.
2.18.2008 11:12pm
33yearprof:
Minneapolis has a 1000 foot ordinance. There is no location, none, where a legitimate gun store can be placed. In fact, the last one moved out of the city last year.

The black-market sellers of drugs and guns are, however, doing a fine business according to a homicide detective. A gang member can buy one at 3 am. He can even get it delivered (with bullets, if desired). He is not deterred by any of the state's myriad of "gun control" laws because, as a criminal, laws are irrelevant to him.
2.18.2008 11:15pm
Russ (mail):
Obama's rhetoric will win him the nomination. As the year goes on, however, his record will cost him the election.
2.18.2008 11:30pm
jvarisco (www):
I don't think Obama is a 2nd amendment crusader, but none of the things you cite seems all that extreme. As far as I can tell, all of those proposals would probably be acceptable to a clear majority of the population.

"Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home."

Depends on how you define securely, I guess. But punishing people for negligence that results in harm makes sense. Perhaps a felony is too high, or the definition of securely not spelled out, but not the worst thing in the world.

"while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park."

You can't sell guns where kids congregate. What's so bad about this? We have similar laws for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
2.18.2008 11:42pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
"You can't sell guns where kids congregate." Kids "congregate" within five miles of schools? You're kidding, right? I can't think of anywhere in all of Arlington County (where I live) that wouldn't be easily within five miles of a school, much less a park. Probably one mile.
2.18.2008 11:56pm
therut:
Jvaristo-----You are ....... I do not even know what to call it. But I can guarantee you his ideas are NOT acceptable. NOT. You would see entire STATE Governments in protest. You have no idea do you?? Neither does he. I hope he tries this if elected(which I doubt). The Democrats will be gone from power for a long, long time and his impeachment will be sealed. Is he really that much out of touch? Hillary at least knows better than this.
2.18.2008 11:58pm
therut:
Kids go to gun shows. Does he know this.
2.18.2008 11:59pm
MDJD2B (mail):

"while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park."

You can't sell guns where kids congregate. What's so bad about this? We have similar laws for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

There is no place in NY state that is not within 5 miles of a school or park.

Where do they have laws banning alcohol or cigarettes within 5 miles of a school or park?
2.19.2008 12:07am
Bill R:
jvarisco: One wonders if Obama has proposed that anyone who doesn't store their automobile securely and it's stolen by a joyrider who crashes and harms someone should be guilty of a felony as well. Perhaps he has, but I've not heard it -- I assume he's just not thought of it and will propose it soon.
2.19.2008 12:08am
Bill R:
wekt:

[Obama...]but unfortunately civilian possession is protected by the Second Amendment.
[...]
Does this seem possible, or am I just dreaming?

I suspect he would omit his disagreement with the decision. This is one battle that he would not want to pick and I expect him to take refuge in the "decided law" position. There are safer places (Roe v. Wade for example) where he can argue the SCOTUS nominee benefit of electing him. Too many moderate Democrats are uncomfortable with the notion that the Second Amendment does not actually mean anything.
2.19.2008 12:16am
Mark Robinson (mail):
jvarisco:
Depends on how you define securely, I guess. But punishing people for negligence that results in harm makes sense. Perhaps a felony is too high, or the definition of securely not spelled out, but not the worst thing in the world.


Someone breaks into MY house, steals a weapon along with the TV, Stero, 'puter...... AND I GO TO JAIL! WTF!!! Are you out of your mind?

Mark
2.19.2008 12:19am
A. Zarkov (mail):
I don't understand the fuss about gun shows. The last gun show I went to was at the San Francisco Cow Place last summer, which is actually in Daly City. There were very few guns on display let alone for sale. The whole thing was one big bore. The same laws that govern gun purchases from dealers apply to gun shows.

Last August San Francisco city officials called for a ban on gun shows at the Cow Palace. But neither Daly City nor San Francisco has jurisdiction over the Cow Palace, which is a creature of the California Department of Agriculture. City officials just "know" that there are illegal gun purchases at Cow Palace gun shows. How do they know that? Simple: neighborhood gossip. According to this article, there has never been an arrest for an illegal gun sale at the Cow Palace in the whole 23-year history having shows there.
2.19.2008 12:47am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Someone breaks into MY house, steals a weapon along with the TV, Stero, 'puter...... AND I GO TO JAIL! WTF!!! Are you out of your mind?"

You got it. Don't you understand, to many on the left, which includes some Obama supporters, you are the enemy? You're "the man," not a "brother."
2.19.2008 12:50am
Inebriated Arsonist:
jvarisco:

You can't sell guns where kids congregate. What's so bad about this? We have similar laws for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.


-Perhaps you should explain why such a law is even needed, beyond some vague inference that a gun store within a few miles of a park or school somehow contributes to crime.
2.19.2008 12:59am
Dave N (mail):
Hopefully the Supreme Court comes down hard on the side of an individual right, thereby taking the gun issue out of politics and thereby benefiting Democrats.
Yes, because we all know how well Roe v. Wade settled the abortion debate and removed it from politics.
2.19.2008 1:06am
therut:
Next time I stop to get gas at the Country-Mart I will make sure no children are there cause they sure sell tobacco there. And children are allowed in stores including just stores that sell firearms. How many children go to Wal-Mart and go with mom or dad to get their hunting or fishing license where firearms are sold. Wonder if the owners children hang out there after school or in the summertime? Has he thought of these things. How long does he think Democrats will stay in office when he taxes at 500%. Think he will loose some Union votes? The USA is not Chicago and it is not governed by Daley and the gang of Democrats in Chicago. I personally think he is stupid. Yes stupid. O:K I am going to calm down now. Gracious!!!!
2.19.2008 1:23am
Brian K (mail):
According to some inside information I have from his campaign people, Obama is not a phony. To his credit, he believes what he says. Of course that's a real problem for some people. If you are hoping Obama will become centered after he's elected, then you had better vote for his opposition. What you see is what you will get.

hilarious. an anonymous online poster has some information from an anonymous "insider" about a candidate that he doesn't like.
2.19.2008 2:00am
jvarisco (www):
There's a difference between banning guns and requiring people to keep them locked up when they are out of the house. I don't see any constitutional problem with the latter.

How many robbers who don't have guns steal them, anyway? If they want to be armed, they are probably going to get the gun first. But if your kid's friend is over, sees your gun, takes it, and ends up shooting someone, I have no problem holding you liable.
2.19.2008 2:34am
Brooks Lyman (mail):
jvarisco -

What's wrong with having a gun store near a school or where kids congregate? No, really - under Federal law, a gun dealer can't sell to anyone under 21, most states have similar laws (but since all gun dealers must be federally licensed, the Federal rules apply) although the state's rules on possession may allow minors to own guns given to them by parent or guardian. In many states, the dealer can't even let a minor touch a gun in the store unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. And anyone who thinks that some kid's looking in a store window and seeing some guns is going to turn them into homicidal criminals is either a believer in witchcraft or ignorant.
2.19.2008 2:37am
MXE (mail):
Between this and his statement that he'd support banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons, I think it's pretty safe to say that Barack Obama has never seen a gun control measure he didn't like.

If he is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will make sure every American is aware of his history on this issue, and it will not be a pretty sight.
2.19.2008 2:54am
MXE (mail):
Also:

Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

Yeah, well, I thought people should have to "pass a basic course" in order to be able to vote, but some jerk told me that was unconstitutional.
2.19.2008 3:21am
John McCall (mail):
Obama is definitely not a friend of guns, and I agree, this bothers me. I'm not a single-issue voter about guns, nor do I pretend to be one to justify my biases; still, I'm concerned.

He at least voted for the Vitter Amendment, though, which Hillary didn't; I swear she's never seen a power grab that she didn't immediately support.
2.19.2008 3:26am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"... hilarious. an anonymous online poster has some information from an anonymous "insider" about a candidate that he doesn't like."

Laugh it up, but it's still true.
2.19.2008 5:18am
Stash:
Seems to me that the war on guns is like the war on drugs or the war on pornography. Good luck with that. Nobody who really wanted drugs, pornography or guns ever went without. It's not about ever really effectuating anything, it's the expression of a moral view. If guns are good thing, believe-you-me there are plenty in poor neighborhoods, and it will remain that way, whatever the legislation. Probably more than there are or ever will be in the rich suburbs. If they are a bad thing, the legislation might hurt some individual gun-sellers livelihoods, but they will not reduce "gun violence."
I think it will be found an individual right. But what level of protection will it be given? That of political speech or pornography? My suspicion on the application: inside the home: high; outside the home: not so much. Right to purchase: high; right to sell: not so much. Criminal or civil liabilty for "negligent" storage: it depends, but probably not.
2.19.2008 5:59am
BladeDoc (mail):
Zarkov

You don't go to the right gun shows. Come on over to Georgia. Barely room to walk b/c of all the tables. Very pretty. Interestingly you can't carry a concealed weapon at a gun show in this state.
2.19.2008 7:18am
Brett Bellmore:

To his credit, he believes what he says. Of course that's a real problem for some people.


Oh, I have nothing against people saying what they believe, in fact, I appreciate it: It makes what they say a better guide to whether or not they believe something really stupid and/or offensive.

Our problem with Obama isn't his being truthful, it's his being truthful about wanting to do some remarkably bad things.
2.19.2008 7:28am
Philip J.:
Why can't Obama compromise by taking a page from the pro-choice playbook: Guns are like abortions; if you don't like them, don't get one.
2.19.2008 8:00am
Alan Gunn (mail):
Stash observed:

Seems to me that the war on guns is like the war on drugs or the war on pornography. Good luck with that. Nobody who really wanted drugs, pornography or guns ever went without.

I wish this were true. Unfortunately, gun bans do keep guns out of the hands of those who, for one reason or another, are unwilling to break the law, so they're worse than harmless. When I visit my family in NY, I leave my handguns behind. If the next "assault weapons" ban--almost certain to be adopted if the Democrats win--doesn't grandfather pre-ban guns, I'll probably end up with a partly empty gun safe. The "If guns are outlawed ... " slogan is kind of hokey, but it's also true.
2.19.2008 8:12am
Brett Bellmore:
Because the whole point of gun control is to keep OTHER people from getting them. In fact, you'll frequently find that gun controllers own guns, often even in jurisdictions where only the highly connected can do so legally. Because it's about denying guns to people you don't trust, where "people you don't trust" is virtually everybody.
2.19.2008 8:14am
Andy Freeman (mail):
> How do you define a "Saturday Night Special?"

The good Democrats who coined the term also defined it, and it's pretty much the same definition used today. A SNS is a gun that isn't good for anything except N*****town on Saturday night.

The term SNS was coined during one of the first gun control campaigns in the US. That campaigned was aimed at disarming freed slaves.
2.19.2008 9:08am
Kenvee:
How many robbers who don't have guns steal them, anyway?

You have got to be kidding me. Have you ever actually read a police report of a burglary? One of the first things that burglars look for are guns. They're easy to sell if you want to get rid of them and easy to use for future crimes if you'd rather keep them.

Also, the laws prohibiting sales of things "harmful to children" -- usually sex-related stuff that I've seen, not alcohol or tobacco, incidentally, which you can buy at most Wal-Marts -- have a limit of 500 or 1000 feet. 5 miles is a little absurd. Do you really think kids are going to trek three or four miles to go look at guns in a shop window? Good grief.
2.19.2008 9:09am
Henry Schaffer (mail):

if that weapon was not securely stored


How is "securely stored" defined?

What would be the effect of a law that says that if a weapon is stolen, it is presumed not to have been "securely stored"?
2.19.2008 9:50am
Uberbob:
If a Dem gets elected I'm moving to Alaska.
2.19.2008 9:53am
Chris M:
"Securely stored" means locked.

"Locked" means unavailable for home protection; the DC laws being the extreme example of this. Obama's idea defeats one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

It's become a mantra that all guns and ammo should be locked separately, but there's plenty of epidemiological evidence which shows that easy availability of a LOADED firearm makes homes safer. Legally owned firearms thwart crime much more frequently than guns are involved in accidents or (usually illegally-owned) are used in crime.
2.19.2008 10:01am
Virginian:
Uberbob, the last time I checked people in Alaska are still subject to federal laws.
2.19.2008 10:17am
pete (mail) (www):

No, really - under Federal law, a gun dealer can't sell to anyone under 21, most states have similar laws (but since all gun dealers must be federally licensed, the Federal rules apply) although the state's rules on possession may allow minors to own guns given to them by parent or guardian.


You are close. 18 year olds are allowed to buy shotguns and rifles, but you can not (legally) buy handguns until you are 21.

Yet another example of treating adults like children, you can shoot handguns or drive tanks in the military at 18, but do not try to buy a handgun at 18.
2.19.2008 10:24am
Orielbean (mail):
Chris M, I'm not sure you could easily argue that the 2nd amend was mainly purposed around home defense. You may be right for the effectiveness in home invasion thwarting ( I happen to agree).
2.19.2008 10:25am
John C:
Don't have direct link to it (but if someone ambitious wants to work on it...) but in 2003; Daley, er, one of his henchmen, brought forth SB 1195 - which would have banned sale, posession, AND manufacture of any semi-autos capable of firing more than 10 rounds; (as well as magazines with greater than 10 rd cap.) There was no grandfathering, just 90 days to forfeit or get out of the state. In the senate J-Comittee hearing on it; Obama commented that "it sounds like confiscation" - then voted for it. I attended the hearing - so this isn't a "my neighbor's cousin's plumber's landscaper's third cousin heard..." situation.

If memory serves, it was in April of 2003.
2.19.2008 10:34am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
It is a strange world where some people hope a politician is not lying to them and others hope he is.
2.19.2008 10:48am
Daryl Herbert (www):
As far as I can tell, all of those proposals would probably be acceptable to a clear majority of the population.

And yet, gun nuts like me will still hold it against him.

Kind of like how abortion rights activists will hold it against a candidate if they favor "reasonable" restrictions that 70% of the public is okay with...

Or how gay rights activists will be upset with a candidate who doesn't want the government to recognize gay marriage, despite that the majority of Americans are okay with things the way they are...
2.19.2008 10:57am
DirtCrashr (mail) (www):
"Stolen" means that whether it's "securely stored" and "safely locked" or not, it's gone from the secure-safe or locked storage cabinet - it's a catch-22 and nothing is impregnable.
Illinois is a one-Party state much like California is, and I'd be very reluctant to separate state political, history agenda, and behaviors from any politician emerging therefrom.
2.19.2008 11:21am
KenB (mail):

Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.
With such a law on the books, few gun owners would be so foolish as to report the serial numbers of stolen firearms. So to enforce the law, comprehensive gun registration would be required.
2.19.2008 11:27am
Kevin P. (mail):
Wikipedia has a comprehensive roundup of Obama's support for gun control, including the DC handgun ban.
2.19.2008 11:31am
kduel (mail):
If one's gun is stolen, then it would seem by definition to have not been stored securely. Thus any victim of gun theft shall be prosecuted for being a victim of gun theft.
2.19.2008 11:37am
Heart of Dixie (mail):
Obama's real objective is to ban all handguns and subsequently all long guns. He is a liar, a socialist, disrespects the U.S. Constitution and the freedom it recognizes. He wants to punish all law abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals. He should move to Great Britian where no firearms are allowed and the crime rate is beyond belief. Yet he still wouldn't admit that their gun control is responsible for crime. I hope he or some of his liberal staff read these comments. I would say to Obama regarding his anti-gun agenda: "From our cold dead hands!"
2.19.2008 11:40am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Brett Bellmore:

"Our problem with Obama isn't his being truthful, it's his being truthful about wanting to do some remarkably bad things."


I agree completely. The reason I brought that up is many people (including me) believe that politicians tend to take more extreme positions during the primary season to appeal to their base. Then after they get elected, they get more centered when they have to confront the realities of governance. That's not the case with Obama. He really believes what he says. This will make a move to the center difficult for him. Since we know so little about him, we don't know how flexible he really is. Thus in my book, he is too much a risk to vote for.
2.19.2008 11:46am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"You don't go to the right gun shows. Come on over to Georgia."

I went to a show in Virginia the year before and found it similarly disappointing. I guess it was the same outfit running both shows. In Virginia you just walked in. At the Cow Palace there were cops and checks and warnings. But that's northern California for you. It exists in it's own world.
2.19.2008 11:50am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
With such a law on the books, few gun owners would be so foolish as to report the serial numbers of stolen firearms. So to enforce the law, comprehensive gun registration would be required.


That's okay because it's not like gun registration would ever be used as the prelude to gun confiscation, right?
2.19.2008 11:54am
The Ace (mail):
I don't think Obama is a 2nd amendment crusader, but none of the things you cite seems all that extreme. As far as I can tell, all of those proposals would probably be acceptable to a clear majority of the population.

Thanks for the morning laugh.

Let me guess, not only do you not own a firearm, you've never fired one. Correct?
2.19.2008 11:58am
Adeez (mail):
"Why Democrats were willing to sacrifice so much on the gun issue is beyond me. Excessive gun control is both bad policy and bad politics."

OK, Mr. Liberal, you're gonna have to change your name now. Ya see, many of the commenters here don't do nuance. The liberals are evil and inept, see. And part of their ineptitude is manifested by their desire to take away every gun in the nation and replace them with fairy dust. So, someone with "liberal" in his name supporting some form of gun rights might cause an existential crisis for some. It just can't be! The caricatures are gonna have to be re-drawn now!

And as someone who agrees with many of the positions deemed "liberal," what'd happen if they knew I am against affirmative action. Their heads might explode or something.

Nuance is not welcome here. You're either a USA-loving patriot, or you're a leftist, a liberal, or a (gasp!) SOCIALIST!
2.19.2008 11:58am
The Ace (mail):
There's a difference between banning guns and requiring people to keep them locked up when they are out of the house. I don't see any constitutional problem with the latter.

Really? No "constitutional problem" at all?
What if the government required you to keep your laptop, typewriter, pens, and paper locked up because someone may steal them and threaten somone else with them. That would be ok with you?

Simply put, there are no limits on govermental authority in your mind.

This is stunning to read. It really is.
2.19.2008 12:02pm
esabacz (mail) (www):
Anyone who thinks that Gun Control is the answer need look no further than Kershaw, Ga. Back in 82/83 the city past an ordinance that read to the effect of "All head of households shall OWN/PROCESS a Firearm." At the time the far left predicted that Kershaw would return to the wild west with neighbors shooting each other in the street. Guess what, it didn't. As a matter of fact, last month, Kershaw,GA celebrated 25 YEARS OF BEING HOMICIDE FREE. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, AFTER PASSING A LAW THAT MADE ALL HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS OWN A FIREARM, THE CITY HAS BEEN HOMICIDE FREE FOR 25 YEARS.
___
Extended reading: For the flip side, review the UK's violent crime rate since banning handguns. I'll give you a hint at what to expect, UK bobbies (Cops) never had to carry a handgun until..... they were banned by the gov't....ironic isn't?

Do I really need to say more?
____
Underbob- I'm with you on moving to Alaska...or WY.
2.19.2008 12:05pm
Mars vs Hollywood:
Uberbob, the last time I checked people in Alaska are still subject to federal laws.

Yeah, but it's too cold to serve the search warrants. :D
2.19.2008 12:27pm
Kevin P. (mail):
Prof. Bernstein, is there an online link to the Chicago Defender article?
2.19.2008 12:49pm
amosjo (mail):
My husband grew up in South Africa, and I asked him about their gun laws because Obama's proposal sounded very familiar. I ended up getting a 1/2 hour lecture, which is another story. Basically, what Obama proposes (Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.) is nothing new -- it mirrors almost exactly the law in South Africa.

In fact, my husband was once prosecuted for having a firearm stolen out of his briefcase. I asked him if that was fair, and he said absolutely. (He got off on a technicality.) He is no fan of Obama or any other Democrat, but he believes strongly that if you own a firearm, you must be responsible for keeping it out of the hands of criminals.

Not only that, but in South Africa you must also show proof that you own the gun for which you are buying bullets. You cannot just walk into a store and pick up bullets.

I asked him why then is the crime rate in S.A. so much worse than America? He chalked it up to unemployment. As unemployment goes up, so does crime. Besides, these laws were on the books long before S.A. got violent -- which began to escalate once there were free elections.

He's a strong Republican and proud gun owner, but it would appear he believes some control is in order.
2.19.2008 1:11pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
There's no way Obama could have been backed by the Daley Democrats had he not espoused these extreme positions. Even the county gun shops of my youth have been closed via repeated legal harassment by Daley and others. The last sports store in the City that sold shot shells ceased doing so a decade ago. The Lincoln Park Gun Club was shut down due to the eevul lead shot.

Considering that Bloomberg is trying to regulate gun shops several states away, it's not surprising that Obama would have talked about creating federal laws.
2.19.2008 1:27pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Kevin P., not that I'm aware of.
2.19.2008 1:50pm
esabacz (mail) (www):
People must be held responsible for their OWN actions.
If a high school kid steals my car and kills a pedestrian, why should I be held accountable?

Should we prosecute parents for allowing their kids to be molested? Because if they had their kids locked up safe and sound, the child molester would never have been tempted.

Should silverware manufactures be held responsible for causing obesity, since their utensils facilitate the ability to shovel food into our mouths?

Should ford motor company be held accountable when people drink and drive?

Should liquor manufactures be held accountable when people drink and drive?

Lets also make sure to hold Walmart accountable for selling gloves, that can aid criminals in not leaving their finger prints behind?

Or how about Lowe's for selling power tools that could be used in a destructive manner.
Give me an F***ing break!

We have got to stop passing the blame for someones actions onto someone or something else. It is sickening! People are responsible for their own actions, period. I don't care if you have "Daddy Issues" or where your stole that gun from or whatnot, if you kill/rape/molest/shoot someone its your fault, sit your ass in the chair *Flip Switch.*
2.19.2008 1:50pm
kendallf:
Back in the mid 80's I had the priveledge of doing a residency at Charity Hospital, New Orleans. I spent a significant protion of that residency in the Accident Room (Shock/Trauma/Burns/Puss) The crack wars were raging and it was common to see 2 -3 gsw's a night. Often 14 -16 y/o but a significant minority under 18. So bottom line; kids that could not legally posses firearms leagally were shooting each other with guns, sometimes full autos, they couldn't legally aquire, with ammo (lots and lots of ammo) they couldn't legally buy to protect or expand turf so they could traffic in crack. I know, lets make selling crack illegal. oh yah. Think they would have any more trouble importing guns than crack ?
2.19.2008 2:09pm
jvarisco (www):
It's not possible to take a key and open a lock if someone invades your home? Even if home invasion was widespread (perhaps in the inner city, but not in most of America) this might be an argument, but it's not. Something like a third of the population owns a gun. That leaves two thirds who don't.

Requiring a course would actually help stop murder, no? Having a gun and not knowing how to aim is a good way to get yourself shot. You guys are as idiotic as NARAL on abortion - it's not necessary to ban guns, but reasonable restrictions, tailored to increase public safety (like not selling to crazy, depressed college kids) are perfectly sensible. This isn't the wild west, it's 2007.
2.19.2008 2:26pm
Kap (mail):

I don't understand the fuss about gun shows. The last gun show I went to was at the San Francisco Cow Place last summer, which is actually in Daly City. There were very few guns on display let alone for sale.


That is a function of the gun show you attended. As a Texan who frequents gun shows I suppose I can provide the platinum-iridium reference experience. The gun shows I have attended featured I would fathom between a thousand and tens of thousands of guns, depending on the show. The big shows like the Houston Gun Collectors Assn show covers I would guess 3 football fields of space and includes e.g. displays of a few dozen restored vintage Jeeps, celebrities such as Paul Tibbets, and suchlike. I would say about half of the tables have guns on them.

All of the shows I have attended have been posted with Texas Penal Code 30.06 notifications at the entrances, prohibiting entry by armed CHL holders on pain of criminal trespass charges. This is a safety measure; mixing loaded guns in an environment where people are handling presumably unloaded guns is dangerous. As far as I understand the postings are not a requirement of law, but probably a requirement of the insurance coverage and exhibition hall management.

Contrary to popular political inference nearly all of the guns for sale are being sold by FFL holders, and are subject to the same federal paperwork and Brady check as required in a gunshop. In fact, my experience has been that the gun shows are essentially traveling groups of retailers that posses real bricks-and-mortar gunshops withing a few hundred mile radius. The operative metaphor is not "a giant flea market of guns" but rather "a giant shopping mall of guns". It is true that some show attendees may bring a personal gun (which is checked and zip-tied at the door by police officers) hoping to sell it, but I would estimate that this represents perhaps 1/100 to 1/1000 of the guns on offer. The HGCA show skews more towards private individuals selling, but their wares skew even moreso towards hunting and antiquity firearms. The "gunshow loophole" is an absolute myth.

The economic purpose of gunshows is to provide price differentiation between the infrequent/one-time buyer of guns and the aficionado. Guns are expensive, and those who collect them are highly knowledgeable in their values and are highly price sensitive owing to their high desires:resources ratio. As an example I purchased an HK P2000 new at a show for $650, and a few days later saw the identical gun in a local shop for $900.

And no, I would never vote for Obama, although none of my other choices are particularly palatable either.
2.19.2008 2:41pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Requiring a course would actually help stop murder, no? Having a gun and not knowing how to aim is a good way to get yourself shot.

Having to demonstrate proficiency with a gun before being able to buy one is a good way to keep yourself unarmed. Joseph Heller called this Catch-22.
2.19.2008 2:41pm
The Ace (mail):
but reasonable restrictions, tailored to increase public safety

And let me guess, you non-gun owner, no better yet, the government, gets to define "resonable" right?
2.19.2008 2:46pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Kap:

Thanks for your informative post. Clearly I need to try other shows. Unfortunately the San Francisco Bay Area has a large population of people who are extremely hostile towards firearms. However the further you go from the San Francisco, Oakland Berkeley Axis the better it gets.
2.19.2008 2:54pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Requiring a course would actually help stop murder, no? Having a gun and not knowing how to aim is a good way to get yourself shot.
Are you suggesting that the terribly complicated user interface of a firearm is beyond the abilities of many people to operate without many hours of training? So most of the gun deaths in America must be accidents--not murders, suicides, or self-defense.

Stop pretending: the objective of mandatory training to get a gun license is to make it difficult to buy a gun. Mandatory training will be available twice a year, in a county 200 miles away, on a weekday, and limited to the first thirty people who actually show up on that day and sign in. And when and where will not be widely publicized, so the thirty people that show up will be friends and families of politicians.
2.19.2008 3:03pm
jvarisco (www):
If one assumes that the government has some secret goal of abolishing gun ownership, then restrictions would be bad. But there's no evidence of that. It's quite possible to create a law that specifies exactly what training would be necessary (say hit a target from x yards away x percent of the time). We require tests in order to drive; is that because the government wants to take away our cars?
2.19.2008 3:23pm
The Ace (mail):
We require tests in order to drive

You
Don't
Have
A
2nd Amendement
Right
To
Drive


Understand?

Why don't we have tests to vote by the way?
2.19.2008 3:38pm
The Ace (mail):
If one assumes that the government has some secret goal of abolishing gun ownership

If you don't think this is the goal of Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Fenty, and the people running San Francisco, for starters, then you're either not informed or delusional.
2.19.2008 3:40pm
Virginian:

However the further you go from the San Francisco, Oakland Berkeley Axis the better it gets.


Ain't that the truth.
2.19.2008 3:43pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
If one assumes that the government has some secret goal of abolishing gun ownership, then restrictions would be bad. But there's no evidence of that.


Correlation and past experience is evidence, sir. Given such pleasant examples as Washington DC (legal ban on any new handguns and any usable rifles or shotguns, practical ban on all guns through zoning and transport laws), and the sheer pointlessness of the vast majority of these laws at preventing actual violent crime, it's pretty cut-and-dry what the point is.

I'll admit it's not some secret governmental goal, but only because politicians have made it rather obvious.
2.19.2008 3:55pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

We require tests in order to drive; is that because the government wants to take away our cars?

You don't have to have a drivers license to own a car, only to drive it away from your property.
2.19.2008 3:55pm
Jacob W (mail):


However the further you go from the San Francisco, Oakland Berkeley Axis the better it gets.


I find that the farther you go from either San Francisco, Chicago or NYC, the better it gets. In fact, to stay as far as possible from any one of them, just move to Texas.
2.19.2008 4:35pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
M. Simon wrote:

It is a strange world where some people hope a politician is not lying to them and others hope he is.

Quote of the day.
2.19.2008 5:54pm
Jay (mail):
That means that Obama,Clinton and everyother liberal wants to steal money and control each and every American under totalitarian control. If they take our Secons Amendment rights they will take other rights too. If you want to start to take action, first, vote for the Republicans in the presidency and senate and if you want to shut him up in the gun issue got and sign this petition:
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348
Our freedom depends on.
2.19.2008 6:20pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
McCain's Second Amendment record looks good only in contrast to Hillary!s and Barack's.
2.19.2008 6:55pm
Scotts (mail):
"Stop pretending: the objective of mandatory training to get a gun license is to make it difficult to buy a gun."

Yup, of course it is. How about an "undue burden" test?

Here at VC, the 9th amendment doesn't exist. To use it is to be a dreaded judicial activist (shudder!) Nor do the words "well regulated" exist in the 2nd amendment**. Certain constitutional rights and powers are absolute, others relative. But we aren't outcome-based.

Question: if the 4th amendment doesn't count during an indeterminate "war on terror" so we can actively prevent future attacks, what about the 2nd amendment? If terrorists were modifying assault rifles and going on suicide sprees at shopping malls and schools, would it count? More people die in gun homicides every year in the US than on 9/11 -- by far. Can the government declare a State of Emergency and suspend the Constitution already?

Gun-rights devotees have some good policy arguments (black markets are pointless) but sometimes you have to step back and wonder about the sanity of people who thought VA Tech would have been a safer place if all the students were carrying handguns all the time.
2.19.2008 7:39pm
Scotts (mail):
** nor does "militia." The 2nd amendment is one of the best examples of the problem with relying on original intent in light of modern technology. Heller can't fix it without a huge pile of judicial activism.

Obviously, Obama hates the Constitution and is ignorant besides. U Chicago hired him to teach because they hire totalitarian morons.
2.19.2008 7:46pm
MXE (mail):
Scotts, please argue the issue, not against some straw-man conservative hypocrite. Who on this comment thread has actually behaved in the way you describe?

For example, I think the 9th Amendment isn't given nearly enough respect, and I am very disturbed by the current administration's cavalier attitude toward civil liberties. I have also never advocated more liberal concealed carry rules on campuses as a safety measure. (If I had my way, CCW would be allowed on campus, but not really for any reason having to do with school shootings.)

Also, the words "well-regulated militia" are in the Second Amendment, but you need to read some of the Heller briefs that David Kopel has been posting if you think that has some bearing on the legitimacy of gun control.
2.19.2008 8:03pm
bh (mail) (www):
gun control................ not on my watch. i believe everyone should have a gun and be able to use it. gun control is only for the ones that are SCARED of guns. hitler took the gun first and then their civil rights. and so do ALL dictatorships. people with guns fight back. guns are just the weapon of choice of cowards that can't or dont have the guts to use something else. do they think banning guns will work?! there are plenty of weapons at lowes, walmart, menards, or even the hardware stores or your local napa store. gun control get real ........... just get over it abortion is killing to some people but we accept it so just accept guns if you dont like them ...... then DONT own one just DONT spoil it for us!!!!!!!!!!
2.19.2008 8:22pm
acanback:
How about a test on the constitution for all who want run for elected office (and a test every time the run).
2.19.2008 9:10pm
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):

Considering that Bloomberg is trying to regulate gun shops several states away, it's not surprising that Obama would have talked about creating federal laws.


Nurse Bloomberg is successfully doing this, not trying.
2.19.2008 9:48pm
guy:

What if the government required you to keep your laptop, typewriter, pens, and paper locked up because someone may steal them and threaten somone else with them.

Laptops that carry consumer financial data already must be secured. I don't recall if the penalties are criminal or civil, but if you're entrusted with something that can cause injury in the wrong hands, you've got the responsibility to keep it out of the wrong hands. On the same basis, we need to start holding gun owners accountable.

Pen and paper - don't worry, these'll be obsolete in five years anyway.
2.19.2008 9:52pm
Ken Nelson (mail):
bEING AS HOW WHEN SOMETHING IS RATIONED I TEND TO BUY ALL THAT I AM ALLOWED. 1 GUN A MONTH = 12 A YEAR, IN THE LAST 61 YEARS SINCE WW2 I WOULD NOW BE THE PROUD OWNER OF 732 GUNS.
2.19.2008 10:22pm
Kevin P. (mail):

Scotts:
Gun-rights devotees have some good policy arguments (black markets are pointless) but sometimes you have to step back and wonder about the sanity of people who thought VA Tech would have been a safer place if all the students were carrying handguns all the time.


Questioning the sanity of your opponents is not always effective in avoiding the debate. In fact, from Wikipedia:

The shootings also renewed debate surrounding Virginia Tech's firearms ban. The university has a general ban on possession or storage of firearms on campus by employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third parties, even if they are state-licensed concealed weapons permit holders.[116] In April 2005, a student licensed by the state to carry concealed weapons was discovered possessing a concealed firearm in class. While no criminal charges were filed, a university spokesman said the University had "the right to adhere to and enforce that policy as a common-sense protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors".[117]

In 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572 was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus.[118] The bill died in subcommittee in January 2006.[119] The university opposed the bill and expressed appreciation at its defeat because "this [would] help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."[119]
2.19.2008 10:30pm
Kevin P. (mail):
No doubt, everyone at Virginia Tech felt safer on April 16, 2007, because guns were banned on campus.
2.19.2008 10:32pm
ScottS (mail):
College kids drink -- a lot

Arming the populace is a bad idea. Arming intoxicated young men is crazy. I am very sure that most college students including those at Tech would agree. Very sure.
2.19.2008 11:21pm
Neil Duncan (mail):
It's pretty obvious that senator Obamma has never had hunter education. Probably never had a gun in his hand or never gone hunting.
What a country of fool's our country has become. I really think there should be a aptitude test in order to vote. It seems our citizens have lost all rationale in rational thinking.
Just look at Great Britain, a real nightmare they had when they confiscated all firearms. The results were tragic as they were predictable.
In London the chances of being mugged is six times greater in New York city.
2.19.2008 11:28pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Here at VC, the 9th amendment doesn't exist. To use it is to be a dreaded judicial activist (shudder!) Nor do the words "well regulated" exist in the 2nd amendment**. Certain constitutional rights and powers are absolute, others relative. But we aren't outcome-based.
I don't know anyone that thinks the 9th Amendment doesn't exist. But it isn't magic; saying it doesn't automatically make all laws disappear, especially since the evidence is clear that it was intended to limit federal power, not state power.


Question: if the 4th amendment doesn't count during an indeterminate "war on terror" so we can actively prevent future attacks, what about the 2nd amendment? If terrorists were modifying assault rifles and going on suicide sprees at shopping malls and schools, would it count? More people die in gun homicides every year in the US than on 9/11 -- by far. Can the government declare a State of Emergency and suspend the Constitution already?
First of all, the 4th Amendment is written in considerably less absolute language. If you want to figure out why, take a look at the letters between Jefferson and Madison in 1788 when they were discussing a Bill of Rights, pro and con.


Gun-rights devotees have some good policy arguments (black markets are pointless) but sometimes you have to step back and wonder about the sanity of people who thought VA Tech would have been a safer place if all the students were carrying handguns all the time.
You mean, someone might have gotten hurt there if one or two of the victims had shot at Cho Seung-Hui?
2.19.2008 11:36pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

College kids drink -- a lot

Arming the populace is a bad idea. Arming intoxicated young men is crazy. I am very sure that most college students including those at Tech would agree. Very sure.
Some college kids drink a lot. I didn't drink. Period. I know college kids with carry permits who don't drink. Period.

It isn't just college kids who these laws disarm, by the way. It is also faculty and staff. Of course, you probably think that they all drink a lot, and are therefore untrustworthy as well. Maybe we shouldn't be trusting them to teach our kids!
2.19.2008 11:38pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

If terrorists were modifying assault rifles and going on suicide sprees at shopping malls and schools, would it count?
If that starts to happen regularly (rather than occasionally--see the curious media incuriosity about what the Trolley Square shooter was shouting)--then it's an argument for an armed population--not a disarmed one.

And if we get to that situation, we'll probably have martial law anyway--and all the ACLU's whining won't make much of a difference. All their wonderful abstractions will start to melt like butter on a Phoenix summer's day, because the death count will be so high.
2.19.2008 11:41pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Can the government declare a State of Emergency and suspend the Constitution already?
Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus under certain emergencies. President Lincoln decided that he had that power as well.

Liberal icon FDR decided that he had the authority to lock up American citizens because of their ancestry--the Court agreed.
2.19.2008 11:43pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

The 2nd amendment is one of the best examples of the problem with relying on original intent in light of modern technology.
So you agree that the First Amendment's protections of free speech and freedom of the press are similarly obsolete in light of modern printing technology? And the protections about search and seizure are also obsolete because of the development of the Internet, email, telephones, and modern international terrorism? But I thought that you were complaining about the Bush Administration's willingness to adapt to the times?
2.19.2008 11:45pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

If one assumes that the government has some secret goal of abolishing gun ownership, then restrictions would be bad.
Government? No, politicians. Professor Volokh maintains a list of all the times that politicians and media figures have stated directly that their goal is to either completely prohibit gun ownership, or handgun ownership, or license it so tightly that few people would be allowed to guns.

Oh yeah: like the story that started this conversation.
2.19.2008 11:48pm
Fast Eddie Cruz (mail):
I agree.. B.O. Hussein is the pied piper... I don't believe there's ever been a presidential candidate who has talked so much yet said so little... With all do respect, Mr. Obamba is indeed an empty suit, and a veracious gun-grabber as well
2.19.2008 11:54pm
Flash Gordon (mail):
You all who are worried that gun owners don't get enough training consider this: there about 60 million people in the USA who own guns. About 59 million of those have had very little training. If that's a problem, I haven't noticed it.

Gun accidents are one the least likely ways to be injured. You are much more at risk of choking to death while eating your lunch than getting shot by an untrained gun owner.
2.20.2008 1:20am
anonimous:
Someone mentioned securing firearms when you leave the house mine always are its called the deadbolt and its on my front door I lock it whenever I leave my firearms and everything else in my house is thus secured and locked.
2.20.2008 1:35am
2nd amend. sucks:
Anyone who does not support a complete ban on handguns in this country is a complete idiot. Those that think the Second Amendment prohibits a complete ban on handguns are even stupider.
2.20.2008 2:30am
fillups66 :
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999
2.20.2008 3:21am
fillups66 :
McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, "McCain Calls for Hearings" Aug 17, 1999
2.20.2008 3:22am
Complete Idiot:
All of us complete idiots need only look at England and their gun control law failures. In light of the idiocy in your post (2nd amend. sucks) I think Complete Idiot would be a complement.
2.20.2008 4:18am
Benjamin9 (mail):
"Depends on how you define securely, I guess. But punishing people for negligence that results in harm makes sense. Perhaps a felony is too high, or the definition of securely not spelled out, but not the worst thing in the world." -------

Since when is having your home broken into negligence? How is a stored weapon a weapon that you can bring to bear for defence? I would think that a goblin would not have his or their weapon equipped with a trigger safety.

This is all BAD stances on ownership. BAD.
2.20.2008 8:04am
zippypinhead:

College kids drink -- a lot

Arming the populace is a bad idea. Arming intoxicated young men is crazy. I am very sure that most college students including those at Tech would agree.


In many jurisdictions (including Virginia) it's illegal for a CCW holder to be drinking or even in an establishment that serves alcohol while carrying a concealed firearm. Given the near total lack of empirical evidence nationwide that CCW holders (including 21+ young men both in and out of college) are regularly involved in alcohol-fueled gun incidents, I strongly suspect this straw man argument has no merit.

Statistically, CCW permit holders are involved in even less criminal conduct than police officers. Perhaps this is because CCW holders realize that the permit is a privilege, not a right, and they can lose it for even minor infractions. This tends to moderate behavior.

The "kids on campus drink too much" dawg just won't hunt...
2.20.2008 8:37am
Benjamin9 (mail):
Lets not forget the ladies also that carry. Many, many ladies share the range where I go. The numbers are growing nicely. 100,000+ CHL's here in Ohio.

Let's not forget the Che Guevara flag in the Houston office of Obamessiah .......
2.20.2008 8:58am
esabacz (mail) (www):

All of us complete idiots need only look at England and their gun control law failures. In light of the idiocy in your post (2nd amend. sucks) I think Complete Idiot would be a complement.


Don't forget about Australia. Since enacting their draconian laws on firearms Home invasion has absolutely Sky Rocketed! Simply because the criminals have nothing to fear.
_____
My buddy sent me this last night, And I felt compelled to post it up for everyone to see.
-------
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner;
freedom is a well-armed sheep.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety. No shit!
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS "REFRESHER" ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.
2.20.2008 9:15am
erol yurtseven (mail) (www):
Only slaves are not allowed to own guns! If you think gun control saves lives,then how come the disarming of jews did not protect them from the Nazis? Why has every 20th century genocide involved gun bans? Why has crime risen on the same parralel as the number of gun laws? Why do the people who tell us we do not need guns(Clinton,O'Donnel,Brady etc.)enjoy the safety of armed body Guards? Everything the Dems. want to do in this country(gun bans,socialize medicine, nanny state)is already in place in Communist Cuba. If this is good,why then do the people of Communist Cuba risk life and limb to get to this country where gun ownership is allowed? When has a criminal ever obeyed a gun law?
2.20.2008 12:01pm
Michael C:
Here is a lesson for more gun control laws or more
"control" laws of any kind -

This man had 19 DUIs and was still driving around putting
lives at risk:

Prohibition again anyone?

Society's ills are complex problems that require complex, long-term and usually expensive solutions that most of us
have no patience or stomach for. We reap the society that
we cultivate.
2.20.2008 1:24pm
SuperMike (mail):
Arming the populace is a bad idea.

Hah. Says you. Feel free to move to any one of the numerous jurisdictions where that's the law of the land if that's how you feel. You'll probably get free health care to boot. Quit trying to screw up the United States: the last place on earth where the average man isn't a serf.
2.20.2008 4:03pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):

One wonders if Obama has proposed that anyone who doesn't store their automobile securely and it's stolen by a joyrider who crashes and harms someone should be guilty of a felony as well. Perhaps he has, but I've not heard it -- I assume he's just not thought of it and will propose it soon.

You know, if you leave your keys in the ignition, someone takes it for a joyride, and then gets in an accident, yeah, I'd say you're partially liable. Any lawyers want to comment? And, by the way, at least in some jurisdictions it is an offense to leave your keys in the car where it's too easy to steal.

I know that pro-gun types are worried that gun control advocates have a secret agenda of confiscating their Precious Objects. OK. But in return, gun control advocates are getting the impression that gun owners want totally irresponsible firearms use including allowing easy access to thieves (what, report that gun theft, who me?) with even less legal entanglement than a bicycle owner.
2.20.2008 4:40pm
Kentucky Redneck (mail):
MDJD2B

In Northern Kentucky where i went to school there was a bar right across the street. As well A gun shop. You could look out the school window and see them both. I never seen any problems become of this. But maybe its because it was in the country and peoples mind set is differnt and level headed than some parts of the United states.

Ohbama is smokeing the crack pipe if he thinks his ideas will work. His ideas sound like something england would do. and look at them.. We should be the example for the rest of the world instead of trying to follow bad examples other countries set. I thought us americans knew better. I would like to see him take the guns away from a city or neigborhood of rednecks. Or tell them they can't buy a gun for their pleasure or protection. It would never happen................
2.21.2008 9:10am
Allen Asch (mail) (www):
Chris M wrote:

"Locked" means unavailable for home protection; the DC laws being the extreme example of this. Obama's idea defeats one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
Actually, the purpose of the Second Amendment is in the first 13 words so many people seem to forget ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"). As the US Supreme Court has held, those words mean the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment is to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [Militia] forces." See US v. Miller, 307 US 174, 178 (1939)

So, how is it that locking up guns when not being used for their militia purpose "defeats one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment?"
2.23.2008 12:51pm