Obama supports individual gun rights (wait, what?)
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 5:04pm.
In an AP story titled, "Obama supports individual gun rights," Obama discussed yesterday's tragic campus mass murder at Northern Illinois University and pointed out that he supports both gun control and "an individual's rights to gun ownership."
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.
...
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.
So the constitution, according to Obama, says the individual has the right to possess firearms, unless you live in D.C.?
But that's not the whole story on Obama and guns.
"As a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds.
"Obama was also a board member of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.
"He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban." (Source: wikipedia)
In prior candidate questionnaires on gun control, Obama has said:
- FAVORS banning the selling or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
- FAVORS increased state restrictions on lawful gun ownership.
- OPPOSES reducing or maintaining current restrictions on lawful gun ownership; and
- OPPOSES allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon
So Obama believes there's an individual right to gun ownership, but believes that the government can prohibit you from owning or possess any handguns. He believes that local government should still be able to prosecute you for owning such a gun, even if you use it in self-defense in your own home.
Now, Clinton is also a firm gun control advocate, but who is Obama fooling here?
It's ridiculous statements like this from Obama that goes unchallenged that makes me leery of supporting him. If a kid had a gun on campus and killed this shooter, Obama would want that student punished for violating the school's "gun-free zone" policy. But he wants people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to believe that he really believes there's an individual constitutional right to possess firearms (so long as it's not an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, a handgun, a concealed weapon, or a weapon used in self-defense in your own home if the local government forbids gun possession.)
Obama's ridiculous claim that he's with those who believe in an individual's constitutional right to bear arms despite this record is why I think more people should take a more critical eye of Obama before we proclaim him the Messiah of the Democratic Party.
Ahhh, Redhorse
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 6:56pm.
Of course, I'm delusional because if Obama says he believes in the individiual right to bear arms, then it MUST BE SO. (and I'm the one delusional?)
If Obama had a record that simply was in favor of the Brady Bill with the waiting period and renewing the ban on assault weapons, I'd agree with you that he's in a more moderate "third-way" position between individual access and stricter control.
But that's not what his history is. He supports banning possession of semiautomatic weapons and handguns. That is a very extreme position on gun control. That's not some middle third way.
If he was moderate on this, I wouldn't call his claim that he supports individual gun rights hypocritical. (Again, Clinton is no NRA member, either).
I don't see how any objective person can look at this record and say this is a candidate who believes that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms. The fact that you won't even try to reconcile his rhetoric with his record suggests that I'm right.
Look, Clinton is no better on guns than Obama. But, it's amazing to see a candidate with this kind of obvious record make this claim today and have it reported unchallenged by the media.
Again, I seriously doubt that if Hillary made this statement that you, Jerid, or Tim Russo wouldn't think to call her out on it.
You're right
Submitted by redhorse on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 7:27pm.
this one is more difficult to reconcile, and frankly, I won't try in part b/c I need to first see where he supported a ban on manufacturing guns. There's a wide range of opinions on gun control, not that necessarily from the institutional players, which would restrict access or sale of certain types of guns while allowing others. Some folks support trigger locks, etc. His is probably somewhere within the typical continuum of those stances.
Still, my point with your crusade has been if you'd just admit your leaning to Clinton you'd have a bit more to stand on. As it is, you've continually thrown sand in one direction while crying about your independence. Get on with it.
As for Hill's duplicity, I've let a lot slip by. There's her response piece from WI today, which is filled with not just half-truth, but full-on lies. The point is, we can hammer and split hairs all day with either candidate -- but I'm right out front with my support.
Still, my point with your crusade has been if you'd just admit your leaning to Clinton you'd have a bit more to stand on. As it is, you've continually thrown sand in one direction while crying about your independence. Get on with it.
As for Hill's duplicity, I've let a lot slip by. There's her response piece from WI today, which is filled with not just half-truth, but full-on lies. The point is, we can hammer and split hairs all day with either candidate -- but I'm right out front with my support.
Nice try, Modern
Submitted by FindlayMarketGirl on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 7:29pm.
But next time, it would help if you researched his full record on gun rights. The media know there's nothing here. Obviously, you disagree. I guess you're a genius.
Right, findlarymarketgirl
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 7:45pm.
You know, you'll always win an argument on a blog by relying on the infallibility of the MSM. ;)
I have cited specific and verifible instances in which Obama's record is one that does not reflect his claim that he respects a concept of an individual right to possess a firearm. I inserted links for my sources for my claims so you can judge them yourself.
The newsstory does nothing more than report Obama's claim that he supports individual gun rights.
Let's see, sourced citations versus unverified claims by a politician..... oh gee, this is so hard.
Yeah, I'm sticking with his voting record over his rhetoric.
If you have something more about his "full record" on gun rights, do share.
not so sure
Submitted by Eric Vessels on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 8:34pm.
i'm not so sure in the case the reporter is interpreting what he said correctly. we've seen this before - and your use of it - in the debate controversy.
the opinions you place on Obama here: "So Obama believes there's an individual right to gun ownership, but believes that the government can prohibit you from owning or possession any handguns." come fully from a reporter's interpretation of what Barack actually said (ie "At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns") How did he voice support. What did he say exactly and was there any other things that he said that might lend more to what he actually "believes".
From another source we find (ABC News): "But asked today about the DC handgun ban currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court, Obama declined to take a position for or against its Constitutionality but did express broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves."
That hardly matches up to your claim and the previous journalists interpretation.
See what he actually said here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4298582
You also don't source past Wikipedia for this: "He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." I'm sure you can do better than un-sourced commentary in Wikipedia.
Let's review this statement again...
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 11:55pm.
First, the Wikipedia article sources the claim that Obama supports a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. So to say that the claim is not sourced beyond wikipedia is not true. The Wikipedia article links to its sources. Now I have, too.
Second, one cannot have broad support for the power of local jurisdiction to make the decision to ban all handguns and then claim that one hasn't taken a position on the D.C. ban which is exactly that case.
Third, and I'm going to keep saying this. Government does not have rights; Government has power and limits on power. Only individuals have rights.
In prior campaigns and on prior votes, Obama has taken positions beyond what is generally regarded as "common sense" regulation.
Someone who believes there's an individual constitutional right to possess firearms would have a clear answer on the D.C. handgun ban.
Obama's Stance on Guns Makes Perfect Sense
Submitted by melvinpurvis on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 10:15pm.
Obama's position on guns is not only practical, but constitutionally sound.
Your attempt to misrepresent his position was pretty lame.
I don't think there should
Submitted by berrybunches on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 10:39pm.
I don't think there should be any restrictions on gun ownership at all
I think its bad that the government would know who has guns and who does not. Face it, the government is corrupt - why should they be allowed to have assault rifles and not us? If martial law is ever declared on this country and they know you have a gun you will be the first they try to forcefully take it away from. If our country gets out of hand you will wish everyone was armed. Look at Waco and other incidents.
oh and one thing no one seems to understand: Criminals do not have registered guns so these laws would only hurt law abiding citizens.
I guess I need to get in the market for an unregistered gun before the new year.
His position is solid
Submitted by Gerardo on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 10:44pm.
I agree with Melvin. Obama's position is constitutionally sound. One can believe that there is an individual right to bear arms and also believe in certain restrictions. The existence of a right does not mean it is absolute.
Now, we might disagree on what is a reasonable restriction. Some might think we can ban automatic weapons, while others might think we should also be able to ban hand guns in metropolitan areas.
The Supreme Court will have to sort this out, but those statements from Obama are not inconsistent.
Aw, come on Modern
Submitted by redhorse on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 11:05pm.
why'd not come back and play? Seems I wasn't the only one seeing there's a way to both assure and restrict access. Intellectually, there's not dishonesty in the position.
Obama supports the D.C. gun ban
Submitted by modernesquire on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 12:08am.
Maybe he waffled and ducked the issue today, Eric. But that doesn't mean that Obama hasn't taken a position on it.
From the November 20, 2007, edition of the Chicago Tribune:
But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
Also, like Clinton, Obama did not join a bipartisan majority of his collegues in lending his name to a Congressional amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court supporting the Court of Appeals ruling that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional.
Why did he hedge today when back in November his campaign publically announced that he thought the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional? Only he can explain that political dodge.
Rezko Supporter
Submitted by Christines on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 1:51am.
What about Obama defending Rezko the Slum Lord, and taking money from him? Later Obama said that he was sorry and returned the money!! Did he return his home and that extra piece of land that he got with the help from Michelle Obama?
Did Obama tell the poor tenants that went without heat and water that he was SORRY! I am sure that they appreciated it! Very ethical man!
Someone needs a hug....
Submitted by bobcody35 on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 2:23am.
Geez Christines, you forgot to mention that his middle name is Hussein.
And that some kooks looking for black helicopters think he's the Anti-Christ.... maybe you know some.
Sorry Christenes
Submitted by Entrwriter on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 3:13am.
Jeez, is that really how you spell your name? That has been dealt with. Of course you could ask the Clintons about Norman Hsu or sleeping with Rupert Murdoch now, couldn't you? But you probably don't have the courage for THAT.
Haaaaaaaaaaa!
Submitted by FindlayMarketGirl on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 6:58am.
I'd like to hear chri stains come back on this one. (S)he's obviously been shut down.
You know