is obama still not getting it?

Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’
Christopher Cooper reports from Duryea, Pa., on the presidential race.

The Obama campaign talks a lot about new ideas and expanding the political map, but in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which the campaign has focused on almost exclusively since the Democratic convention, old-school issues still rise to the fore.

The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obama a curve ball.

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/



not once did he mention the second amendment as a possible road block to a "planned confiscation"

all obama should say is "i will protect the 2nd amendment rights of americans" and none of this BS

Wish he'd just say it without all the equivocation.

Only an ignoramus would call it mealy-mouthed, so I'm sure your fingers just slipped a bit on the keyboard.

He's not gonna say he opposes any and all gun control, because he doesn't. Neither do I. Nor most INTELLIGENT Americans.

...but I also think his comments are mealy mouthed.

Take for example his comment:

"Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in congress."

What the hell does that mean? What happens in 2-4 years if he does have the votes in congress?

Once again, he refers to sportsmen. "I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns." What the hell does that mean? That sportsmen have nothing to fear? That they'll be able to keep their rifles, as long as they surrender any magazines and have their rifles converted to single shot rifles, because that's all you need to shoot a deer, right?

He also keeps talking about the guns you have in your house. What about the guns you don't have in your house? Or what about the 17 year old that doesn't have any guns yet, but would like to buy some when he turns 18? What about ammunition? He promises not to take away our guns, but he has said before that he supports bans on the sale of ammunition.

One last thing, grow up and stop calling people names on the Internet.

more specific statement he made?

What's so damn important about guns. Buy your food at the super market.

fuck with the 2nd Amendment and you lose elections!!!

You do care about the future ...don't you?

the second amendment is just as much a part of the constitution as the 4th- so they should stop trying to chip away at it every advantage they get

proposed assault weapon bans rip that amendment apart- turning the right to bear arms into the right to own a gun for purely sporting purposes- which is inconsistent with the 2nd amendments meaning

obama can talk all he wants about closing the gun show loophole but stay away from bans- especially bans on some of the most popular sporting and defensive firearms in america

Gun-control has always been part of the Democrats' platform. Always will be. But at least they're upfront about it. Obama's policy stance is clear and reasonable. If their position on 2A issues has cost them elections in the past the blame lies not with them, but with the ignorant single-issue voters (whether that issue be guns, abortion or gay marriage) who insist upon voting against their best interests. There seems to me to be a fringe group of Americans who are just fine with giving up their rights to free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, a fair trial, etc. so long as no one touches their guns. Which party, I ask, poses a more serious threat to individual rights? And tell me the worst that might happen under a Democratic administration? Another "assault weapons" ban? Oooooh...the last one resulted in massive loss of life and liberty, didn't it? All those poor souls who were unable to stop the bad guy after firing ten shots. If only they'd been allowed to own a 30 round clip.....

Want to make a difference this November? Educate your neighbors about the real issues at stake. And ask them: What good is unrestricted gun ownership when, after paying for food, gas and other basics they have nothing left over to buy ammo, let alone that way-cool Desert Eagle they've always wanted.

"Gun-control has always been part of the Democrats' platform. Always will be."

I am not aware of any Democratic gun-control initiatives prior to the late 1960's. Please provide some evidence to back up your assertion, or admit that the 1960's-to-2000's emphasis on gun control is a johnny-come-lately aberration. From FDR (not to mention Eleanor Roosevelt) to Kennedy, our great Democrats owned and used firearms responsibly. I believe that the path to an effective Democratic majority in the future will lead us past a re-invigoration of 2nd Amendment support among Democrats.

-app

Recall that the 14th Amendment had to be passed to get around all the gun control laws the Democrats passed at State levels in the Reconstruction South.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32884.html

That held for most of a 100 years with the "Dixiecrats" and the "Solid South". Now Democrats in cities like Chicago, DC, and Detroit are taking guns away from Black people like the 14th never existed. The Party's national emphasis on gun control didn't begin until the 60's, except for one other major foray.

The 73rd Congress enacted the first national gun law in US history:

1934-06-26 — The National Firearms Act of 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236) regulated machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

Initially, the proposed legislation also included all handguns. The version eventually signed into law by FDR avoided the Second Amendment question by making the NFA a tax measure.

73rd United States Congress
Session: March 4, 1933 –January 3, 1935
President of the Senate: John Nance Garner
President pro tempore of the Senate: Key Pittman
Speaker of the House: Henry T. Rainey
Members: 435 Representatives
96 Senators
5 Territorial Representatives
House Majority: Democratic
Senate Majority: Democratic

I was first active in the Democratic Party in 1960. There was not then, nor for some years afterward, even a mention of gun-control (I do remember JFK's comments about how he strongly supported the Second Amendment for self-defense and militia purposes; that was good enough for me). I am VERY disturbed about your comment about gun-control's future: "Always will be." This suggests a rigid stubbornness, a clinging to a rather recent Platform issue, that has and will continue to bring grief to the Democratic Party.

How do you feel about the Platform position on guns? How loyal are you to this "single-issue" that you are willing to keep it in there while intellectually making the leap that the blame is on a fringe group of Americans?

Have you not met the enemy in your culture war?

guns can also be used for self defense.

My daughter merely pointed a revolver at some idiot forcing the sliding glass door of our home open. He left.

Not about hunting. I don't know how by now you do not understand that. Most gun owners do not hunt.

It's Joe Bageant's "Deer Hunting With Jesus." Just came out in paperback (I sell books for a living, which is totally awesome, btw.) I urge every metropolitan DUer to read this thing, in fact, it's really enlightening, and kinda depressing too.

Joe is from Appalachia, and it is the clearest explanation of the importance of the gun thing to a HUGE swathe of the country. What you might think of as flyover country, really. He also argues - and I agree - that the gun thing is a terrible, terrible losing battle for the Democrats who endorse gun control. Here's why I agree. These guys, and I've known a fair few, really feel strongly about their guns, strong enough to come out in force if they can be convinced that there's a serious threat if this guy or that guy is elected. For example, in 2000 I couldn't get an atheist who thought Dick Cheney was evil to come out and vote for Gore, or against a right-wing religious freak running for Congress who ended up winning and holding it for a couple of terms, all because the NRA got to him first (that he was a veteran didn't help either.) It's a seat now in Democratic hands, btw - Ben Chandler, D-KY.

Beyond the gun thing, the book's also pretty informative about the practice of religion in Appalachia (fundie in ways you don't even think exist) and the pervasiveness of anti-intellectualism and corresponding popularity of talk radio. It's a damn good book, I recommend it.

I second your recommendation.

...was A-rated by the NRA and had their endorsement.

Central and Eastern Kentucky voters have been straight ticket Democrats since Lee met Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.........mostly.

The Kentucky Democratic party quit running anti-gun candidates like Scotty Baseler and Nick Clooney and they are getting Congressional seats back. Seats they held for a hundred years until they were tarred with the national party's "gun grabber" brush.

They have had their "road to Damascus" moment. After several cycles of running anti-gun candidates and losing, the State Party has rediscovered that pro-gun Democrats will win over pro-gun Republicans.

If there is an anti gun candidate running in the state this election cycle they have had sense enough to shut up about it!

I want to further boost Chandler's cred as not just a Republican in Democratic clothing, by the way.

When the domestic spying issue was high on everyone's radar, I wrote to Chandler decrying the practice and urging him to help stop it. I wasn't expecting to hear anything, frankly.

Amazingly, I got a real letter back that actually addressed my points, shared my concerns, and didn't at all try to do play both sides of the issue. He's a stand-up guy in my book.

The other Democratic representative from my state, John Yarmuth, is pretty awesome too. His paper, the LEO (Louisville Eccentric Observer) is free, widely read, funny as hell and smart as a MENSA meeting. I love it.

Stop the violent crime in Memphis, and I will stop carrying my .45. I got my carry permit after being robbed at gunpoint in my driveway.

I see your "steaks" walking around my pasture. I know where your food comes from, even if you don't. Worse comes to worse, we can grow everything my family needs even if we have to turn to methods used a hundred years ago. We still know how. You can't buy that at the supermarket.

With that in mind, the question should be "What's so damn important about your family that you'd want to protect them?"

WTF is the 2nd Amendment being only about hunting about?

it seems they aren't concerned about gun owners.

David

to the constitution. He's a constitutional scholar..he knows his constitution which is a whole lot more than bushco knows.

but banning almost all semi-auto long guns is not "respecting the second amendment"

as the SCOTUS has determined- the second amendment protects arms that are in common use for lawful purposes at the time- and it just so happens that many (if not all) of the guns covered by the assault weapon bans are in common use- for lawful pruposes.

if he truly respected the second amendment he would not call for gun bans

thats like saying you respect the 4th amendment but are all for warrantless wiretaps and telecom immunity

says that he does not. His recent lukewarm remarks about "respecting the Second Amendment" sound hollow and leave his supporters conflicted.

When Obama insists that cities like Chicago must be "allowed" to ban guns and people read articles like this:

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

the people of Cheyenne want no part of what's most obviously not working in Chicago.

And unfortunately Obama's advisers are giving him poor advice because of their ignorance of the issue and their support for gun control. Obama (or his campaign staff) could have consulted pro-2A Democrats in this forum and on other Web sites, but he didn't. This indicates both the complete bureaucratic rigidity of the Democratic "leadership" on this issue, and the weakest link in his campaign. He could STILL lessen the damage of his past anti-gun stands by giving unequivocal support to the Second Amendment and by proclaiming as a matter of policy and constitutional protocol his opposition to any further Federal legislation designed to: (1) ban weapons types; (2) promote registration; (3) infringe the lawful ownership of firearms. But I fear that he and his advisers will continue to resist calls "for change" from within his own party, and studiously avoid ANY contact with pro-2A Democratic Party activists.

As for the story at-hand, it points up Obama's continued awkwardness with the subject of the Second Amendment, something completely predictable to anyone reading this forum over the last year. Like all prohibitionist "movements," gun-control is a culture war characterized by hatred, intolerance and a sense of morality as vast as it is amorphous.

Chickens coming home to roost, indeed.

"Like all prohibitionist "movements," gun-control is a culture war characterized by hatred, intolerance and a sense of morality as vast as it is amorphous."


Many people seem to feel that knowing ANYTHING about firearms is a "bad" thing, and that it makes you a "bad" person somehow. The feeling shines through quite often in conversations with people.

"hand-picked crowd"

I would hope that means they drew numbers from a hat etc for the opportunity to attend.




"keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people"

How do you "keep" something from someone that already has it?

The question posed Obama seemed slow-pitch, designed for Obama to clarify his position. He must make it clear that any attempts at gun-control are a matter for the states and localities, not the federal government. In this way, he removes Congress and the presidency from the equation and lets whatever measures are passed locally rise or fall in court. He seems close to that position when he makes the Chicago-Cheyenne argument. Why not go the extra mile?

He respects the Bill of Traditions...geeezzz :crazy:












:sarcasm:

An executive order forming or mandating that every state have an anti gang task force, and then fund it. I think that would be most effective at both removing the guns already in circulation with the gang bangers and drug dealers, it could also be quite effective at reducing our crime rates, especially violent, if we actually made people serve their sentences for things like being a felon in possession of a weapon, or using a weapon in the commission of a felony, or any of the numerous laws created to dog-pile criminals who actively harm others.

I remember a program in Virginia, where they charged every gangbanger they caught under the Federal gun charges. The program seemed to be working as the prospect of having to serve time in a Federal thousands of miles from was more of a deterrent.

I agree with you, every time a thug is caught with a gun in the commission of a crime they need to lock them up for 40 or 50 years.

"gun crime" rate. Then silly things like AWBs would be even less neccessary! Hard to argue that there is a reason to limit people's choice of shooting iron when there isn't any harm caused by it. Not that there is now, but you get where I'm coming from, crime statistics rarely list that fifty or sixty percent of crimes are caused by the "ring of fire" manufacturers like Jennings/Bryco, Lorcin, Davis, and Jimenez alone. I don't know if that is a true estimate, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was even higher than that.

Even if he doesn't understand the red-state psyche and guns, he should respect it. (I believe it goes like this: "I may be shit in the big scheme of things, I may live at the mercy of a psycho boss, I may not have the best trailer in the park but, by God, I can take care of me and mine." Gun ownership is absolutely central to many, many Americans' self identity and pride.)

Democrats have lost far too many elections over this issue, it is time to stop the self-immolation.

And welcome to the Gungeon.