…and Steve still doesn’t understand irony.
If Obama critcised anyone it is likely to be McCain and isn’t he your ideal of “perfection”?
Mr Obama wants to take away your rights to defend yourselves by the use of firearms, and has consistently voted, as a congressman, to achieve this end. Just what is it that he is afraid of that makes him so anti-RKBA?
So whatever else he plans to do, that alone damns him as far as I would be concerned if I was a citizen of the US of A.
To me, that is the most un-American thing about him, and immediately puts serious doubts in my mind about every one of his other agenda items.
I don’t care if he’s green with purple stripes - his external colour-scheme means diddly-squat to me. I’m a sort of ruddy/splotchy/browny pink with a scattering of hard-wearing brown dots, and I’m also an Irish and Jewish bastard with French connections, so I can’t point a finger at anybody with either mixed ancestry or alternative chromatic tegumentology.
It’s just that I’ll ever get used to him calling himself an American.
tac
PS - has anybody actually laid an eyeball on his birth certificate yet?
Terry A de C Foley said:
Mr Obama wants to take away your rights to defend yourselves by the use of firearms, and has consistently voted, as a congressman, to achieve this end. Just what is it that he is afraid of that makes him so anti-RKBA?So whatever else he plans to do, that alone damns him as far as I would be concerned if I was a citizen of the US of A.
To me, that is the most un-American thing about him, and immediately puts serious doubts in my mind about every one of his other agenda items.
I don’t care if he’s green with purple stripes - his external colour-scheme means diddly-squat to me. I’m a sort of ruddy/splotchy/browny pink with a scattering of hard-wearing brown dots, and I’m also an Irish and Jewish bastard with French connections, so I can’t point a finger at anybody with either mixed ancestry or alternative chromatic tegumentology.
It’s just that I’ll ever get used to him calling himself an American.
tac
PS - has anybody actually laid an eyeball on his birth certificate yet?
I wasn’t aware of any issues with his birth certificate.
If Obama was as “anti-gun” as you portray, he would need either a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling against the second amendment. I don’t see either happening.
Failing that, here in the South, we have certain rights we will defend. In my neck of the woods, they would have to kill a lot of people in order to take away their guns.
In the mean while, we have a “in our face” problem we have to deal with now. The economy is in the toilet and the only jobs the Republican tax cuts created are at McDonalds.
We have to earn a living today. If gun rights become a problem, we will deal with it then.
Ralph
Just like his “gotta change” message, without ever stating exactly what the changes would be, Obama takes great pains to obfuscate his real standing on the gun control issue. Here are several Obama quotes on gun control.
Note that he seems to acknowledge the improbability of either overturning the 2nd amendment or in getting new restrictive federal gun control passed. Instead, he comes out highly in favor of state and local gun control. This of course would accomplish his goal, providing defacto gun control wherever the anti-gun lobby is or gets into power.
Where he did vote as a legislator in Illinois, he voted in favor of gun control. His response to the question “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” was “Yes.” He now says a staff member filled out the form, again removing Obama from any responsibility.
This is like his choice of a church and religious leader for the last 20 years: He just didn’t know what the Reverend was saying!
Just more of the Obama lies that are being ignored in the rush to elect “The One.”
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Jerry Bowers said:
Note that he seems to acknowledge the improbability of either overturning the 2nd amendment or in getting new restrictive federal gun control passed. Instead, he comes out highly in favor of state and local gun control. This of course would accomplish his goal, providing defacto gun control wherever the anti-gun lobby is or gets into power.Happy RRing,
Jerry
I have no problem with local control That is how things should be. Obama does not live in my neighborhood. If one of John McCain’s seven homes happens to be around here, he’s probably never been there.
If you are in the minority in your community and the issue is important to you…move.
Thanks to our current administration, we have plenty of homes here to sell you when the time comes.
Ralph
Recall, though, that the Supreme Court recently overturned DC’s gun ban, which pretty much solidifies the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in favor of the people. I think pretty much took that off the table as a campaign issue this year. Recall the past elections where the NRA was heavily involved. They’re almost non-existent on the campaign trail this year. You’d think they’d be harping on any shred of evidence that Obama is pro-gun control, but there’s simply no need. When the Supreme Court says it’s okay, it’s okay. Ain’t much you can do about it. (Until you change the make-up of the court.)
Ironic–liberals fear a conservative court on the chance they might overturn Roe v. Wade, outlawing abortions, thus arguably saving lives. Conservatives fear a liberal court on the chance that they’d outlaw gun ownership, arguably saving lives.
Later,
K
Kevin Strong said:
Recall, though, that the Supreme Court recently overturned DC's gun ban, which pretty much solidifies the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in favor of the people. I think pretty much took that off the table as a campaign issue this year. Recall the past elections where the NRA was heavily involved. They're almost non-existent on the campaign trail this year. You'd think they'd be harping on any shred of evidence that Obama is pro-gun control, but there's simply no need. When the Supreme Court says it's okay, it's okay. Ain't much you can do about it. (Until you change the make-up of the court.)Ironic–liberals fear a conservative court on the chance they might overturn Roe v. Wade, outlawing abortions, thus arguably saving lives. Conservatives fear a liberal court on the chance that they’d outlaw gun ownership, arguably saving lives.
Later,
K
Whose lives, though, Kevin? Criminals? House breakers? Are those the lives that you want to save?
Quote:Innocent people whose only crime was getting into a verbal dispute with the wrong person, or walking in the wrong place at the wrong time? Students attending high school? Children caught in the crossfire of domestic squabbling? Parents whose only crime was marrying a hot-head with a gun?
... Whose lives, though, Kevin? Criminals? House breakers? Are those the lives that you want to save?
I’ve been a journalist for nearly 15 years. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been to a scene where the homeowner had to use deadly force to protect his property. I’ve been to scenes that many times in one month where someone’s life was taken for no reason. I’ve talked to the families of these victims. I’ve lived the senselessness of it. I’ve cried with these people; been to their funerals. It’s a grief I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. And yes–in many cases–the guns used were legally owned by the shooter. It’s not a matter of “only outlaws having guns.”
I’m not saying that owning a gun isn’t a deterrent to someone breaking in. I’m quite positive that there have been plenty of break-ins thwarted by the homeowner brandishing a weapon. (Just make sure you’ve got better aim than the intruder–I’ve been to those scenes also.) But there’s simply no denying the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of lives lost to gunfire are innocent lives. Yes, I do believe that banning guns would save most of those. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that had my former next door neighbors been gun owners, they’d be statistics.
Now, I am not advocating banning gun ownership, merely pointing out the likely benefits of such a ban. Gun ownership is too deeply entrenched in our culture, and has now been reinforced by the Supreme Court. These lost lives are an inherent casualty of that cultural choice, and we have to live with those consequences. You can’t have it both ways. By the same token, “choice” is a cultural decision we–as a society–have made. In both cases, society has weighed the options, and decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. We–as individuals–may not agree with the principles at play, but our acceptance of them goes to the heart of democracy–accepting that which you don’t necessarily agree for a greater collective cause.
Later,
K
Steve Featherkile said:Wow, Steve! I don't know what to say to that. They're folks just like your neighbors.
Whose lives, though, Kevin? Criminals? House breakers? Are those the lives that you want to save?
-Brian
Really well said Kevin. I’m a gun owner, I have a shotgun and go hunting once or twice a year in West Virginia. But I would be happy to see stronger controls on gun ownership. Remember the Virginia Tech massacre, and how easy it was for that guy to get a bunch of guns and kill 32 people. And the NRA’s response? Everyone in the room should have had a gun. We are at the point where even talk of moderate regulation of guns gets shouted down.
mike omalley said:More people are killed by cars in a day, than are killed by guns in a year in the USA. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. It is a tool that is misused by a small segment of society. Control only inconveniences the law abiding. The criminal is unaffected. As for the nut jobs, if there were no guns they would find another way to kill. As for domestic situations, is it more humane to be beaten to death? Ralph
Really well said Kevin. I'm a gun owner, I have a shotgun and go hunting once or twice a year in West Virginia. But I would be happy to see stronger controls on gun ownership. Remember the Virginia Tech massacre, and how easy it was for that guy to get a bunch of guns and kill 32 people. And the NRA's response? Everyone in the room should have had a gun. We are at the point where even talk of moderate regulation of guns gets shouted down.
Quote:I'm not arguing the number of deaths caused by one means over another. Yes, cars are deadlier than guns. No argument there. There's also no call to ban cars or alcohol (a leading factor in auto-related deaths). We tried the latter once. Didn't work. So, we promote responsibility, and establish laws relative to the use of autos and sales of alcohol. Effective? As effective as it can be, given the human quotient of the equation.
... More people are killed by cars in a day, than are killed by guns in a year in the USA. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. It is a tool that is misused by a small segment of society. Control only inconveniences the law abiding. The criminal is unaffected. As for the nut jobs, if there were no guns they would find another way to kill. As for domestic situations, is it more humane to be beaten to death?
Yes, nut jobs will always find new and improved ways of killing, but we don’t have to make it easy for them. Ask the folks in Oklahoma about fertilizer and diesel fuel. We didn’t ban either substance, but people got a bit more diligent about sales of both. I can’t buy Sudafed without talking to a pharmacist first. It’s not a big deal, and it keeps people from buying the stuff by the case to make meth.
Laws don’t exist to protect the law-abiding. They exist to thwart those who are not. Are there ways around? Absolutely. No law is perfect in that regard. Do some of the regulations inconvenience people? Sure, but again–does the inconvenience outweigh the intended control? In most cases, no. Who complains when asked for ID when buying beer? If I’m going to buy a gun, I have no problem with a criminal background check. I don’t have a criminal background. (Speeding tickets–thankfully–don’t count.) If I know I have criminal background and cannot get a gun through legal channels, then I’m forced to try to find other means. That simple roadblock is often enough to thwart many people who look to do things in the heat of the moment.
Example… I’m at a bar, and get into an argument with you. You call my mother names. I get upset, and go across the street to the Wal-Mart to buy a gun in order to defend mom’s honor. I go into Wal-Mart, and the clerk says “I can sell it, but you’ll have to pick it up tomorrow after a quick check.” I push over a display of pillows on my way out the door to vent my frustration, kick an empty bottle on the way to my car, and drive home. Guess what–your life was spared by an “inconvenient” regulation. I’m fairly certain that–had the regulations not been in place and I was able to return to the bar to give mom her proper comeuppance–your survivors would not call any such proposed regulations “inconvenient.” I’d like to think your family would much rather have you sitting at the dinner table than lying 6 feet under it.
“More humane to be beaten to death?” No, but the likelihood of death from mere physical conflict is far, far less than that when there’s a gun involved. Remember–guns were invented because hand-to-hand combat was an ineffective means of subduing the enemy. Look at the number of domestic beatings–thousands reported every day. But both parties live to fight another day. Those parties are perfectly capable of beating each other to death, but they don’t because of the energy needed to do so. Put a weapon in their hand (gun, knife, lead pipe, candlestick in the library), and the chances of a worse outcome increases exponentially.
Later,
K
Cars are not designed for killing.
Neither are hammers.
Neither are baseball bats.
Neither are wooden fence palings.
I know knives and spears can also kill, but that is not what they were originally designed for.
Guns are designed for one thing only.
Killing something.
We here in Australia are lucky in that we have pretty good gun control legislation that was enacted after a nutter in Tasmania set the World record for killing the largest number of people by a single hand.
The guy who shot 32 people at virginia tech could not have done it with a car, or a club, or a knife, or his fists. It’s the particular effectiveness of guns as a killing tool that makes the difference. He bought some guns at a gun show, loaded up, and just opened fire randomly on people sitting in classrooms. He had insane angry delusion and grand apocalyptic fantasies that only a gun could fulfill. If it had been harder for him to get the gun, 32 kids might be alive today, 32 families would be spared watching their effort and dreams wiped out.
Bathtubs kill people, stairs kill people, dogs kill people, but you can’t throw 32 people down a flight of stairs.
We dont regualte aspirin, because it’s not that dangerous. We do regulate morphine, because it’s far more dangerous.
You anti-gun people (and SHAME on the HISTORY teacher for it) keep missing a VERY important point. When the second amendment was written a bunch of ordinary people had just USED their guns TO KILL PEOPLE… in order to overthrow what they felt was a tyrannical government. They wished to ensure that, should it ever become necessary again, WE THE PEOPLE could repeat that action.
Considering the difference in armament between what the military currently has and what the average citizen has this part (heart, actually) has mostly become symbolic. But don’t be in such a hurry to throw it away, symbols still have power (the cross, the star of david, the dove, peace signs even) …especially at a time when our own beloved government has already seen fit to trample, twist and generally ignore just about every other item in the Bill of Rights.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin 1759
Hold on a second, Mik. No one’s debating the 2nd Amendment, nor the fundamental principles underlying its creation. The Supreme Court’s recent decision on DC’s gun ban upheld that pretty solidly, hence my argument as to why it’s not a campaign issue this year. No one–not the journalist who’s been fairly close to gun violence, but enjoys target shooting when he has a chance; not the history professor who hunts–has even remotely suggested overturning the 2nd Amendment.
What we do support is smart, common sense regulation of the industry to make it a bit more difficult (note I did not say “impossible”) for criminals and those not-so-mentally-stable to obtain guns in the first place. Nothing wrong with a background check, nothing wrong with a national database to close up the cracks people use to slip by. Ideally, I’d love to come up with a–parden the pun–bullet-proof way of keeping guns out of criminals’ hands, but we all know that’s simply not realistic.
Later,
K
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
mike omalley said:No, He could have used a truck load of fertilizer and killed many more people. You can buy fertilizer most anywhere. Ralph
The guy who shot 32 people at virginia tech could not have done it with a car, or a club, or a knife, or his fists.
Kevin Strong said:
Nothing wrong with a background check, nothing wrong with a national database to close up the cracks people use to slip by.Later,
K
We have that already. And a national data base can be used to confiscate the weapons.
Times get bad enough we all may really need our guns to protect ourselves and our families.
People get hungry enough, they will try to take what is yours. It happens daily on a small scale now.
Just imagine what it would be like with double digit unemployment and runaway inflation.
Ralph
This is what always happens–gun control absolutists won’t allow any discussion of regulation.
There"s a famous argument about the right to limit free speech–free speech does not protect a man who falsely yells “fire” in a crowded theater.
Of course the Va tech shooter could have built a fertilizer bomb. Or started a fire.
He used guns that he bought with absolutely zero trouble, even though he had already been under psychiatric care for making violent threats.
If the number of people killed by fertilizer bombs ever got close to the number of people killed every day by guns, I’d be arguing for some iind of regualtion of fertlizer, absolutely