I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most Obama defenders here will instantly launch into an attack on people who own guns without actually defending Obama's stance and ambiguity on this issue.

I'll dismiss the "ban all semi-automatics" thing, because I don't think he ever actually held that position, but he did support a total handgun ban in IL and supports the absurd failed and, thankfully, expired 1994 ban.

I'll give credit to Obama supporters who just admit they don't like his position on this but that he still works on balance for them. I've seen plenty of those, and I've made similar points about candidates I support. But if you're going to defend a) Obama's position, and b) Obama's obviously deliberate ambiguity on the issue, please actually do so without "Crazy gun nuts!" nonsense.

/insert "bitter" remark

Let's amend that, shall we?

A guide to which of your guns Obama will spend some political capital attempting to get legislators to unsuccessfully ban.

Obama is going to have bigger tasks to work towards than gun control. Health care, energy policy, and foreign policy are going to be the issues where he ends up spending all his efforts.

That's assuming he gets elected, of course.

Obama won't try to ban any guns, for two reasons:
1. He has realized, along with most of the Democratic Party (including Howard Dean, with his NRA A+ rating), that it's a complete waste of time.
2. He wants to be re-elected.

Hey, none of my guns are on that list, so hooray for me.

They're takin' our joooorbs....I mean guuuuuns!!!

Farkin' Redstaters. So damn paranoid, I'm surprised they can make it out of the house each morning.

Don't Tase Me Bro: Obama won't try to ban any guns, for two reasons:
1. He has realized, along with most of the Democratic Party (including Howard Dean, with his NRA A+ rating), that it's a complete waste of time.
2. He wants to be re-elected.

If I were the sort who would "THIS", that's what I would do here. The Dems have realized that gun control will not win them elections.

Ace Frehley's Ghost: If I were the sort who would "THIS", that's what I would do here. The Dems have realized that gun control will not win them elections.

Then why doesn't he come out and state his position clearly?

UNC_Samurai: Obama is going to have bigger tasks to work towards than gun control.

This. I strongly disagree with his stance on gun control, but I don't think he's going to get the traction that he needs to get anywhere with it. Just to be on the safe side, I'm going to vote for Republican congressmen with one hand even while I pull the lever for Obama with the right hand.

Party loyalty? My party loyalty is to the Systems Analysis party, of which I am currently the only member.

Great idea because outlawing things solves the problem. The war on drugs is going great! /sigh wtfs Obama...

AFAIK Obama says he'd leave gun laws to the state, no?

I'm very liberal, and don't give two shiats about gun control. It's a worthless cause to pursue.

Whatsleft: I'm very liberal, and don't give two shiats about gun control. It's a worthless cause to pursue.

yep.

When will people start to realize how bad barry obama would be for this country? Hopefully before November.

That sucked! Too many words, not enough pictures of guns and most of the pictures of guns were guns that mainly suck.

guns.

When will people start to realize how bad barry obama would be for this country? Hopefully before November.

Both candidates suck. We need a farking do-over...

Actually, I'll make a controversial statement: The US does not have a problem with gun violence. Possibly, in the 90s, there was a problem, but to really know if guns were an issue, we'd have to look at the general crime stats and see how much of the population was gun crime.

At any rate, gun crime doesn't really pose a major threat. 400,000 incidents (that's crimes committed with a gun- not murders or shootings, and it would include illegal discharge) a year in a population of 3M? Background noise. I'd be more worried about swimming pools and beaches.

agentxavier: When will people start to realize how bad barry obama would be for this country? Hopefully before November.
Both candidates suck. We need a farking do-over...

I disagree.

/inanity
//let me show you

agentxavier: When will people start to realize how bad barry obama would be for this country? Hopefully before November.

Both candidates suck. We need a farking do-over...

Couldn't agree more.

Whether or not he would actually work to enact further gun control, I can't vote for him because he doesn't respect what I consider to be a basic human right. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or sporting, although those are certainly legitimate activities.

That being said, Obama is an intelligent well-spoken man, its just a shame that someone who purports to understand the Constitution so well would fail to recognize the necessity of keeping and bearing arms.

t3knomanser: in a population of 3M?

Er, population of 300M.

i think the supreme court decision on the DC ban will tell us all we need to know about the next 50 years of gun control in this country

Whatsleft: I'm very liberal, and don't give two shiats about gun control. It's a worthless cause to pursue.

Some people feel that way about habeas corpus for terrorists or abortion rights. Nothing like treating the Constitution like a cafeteria, picking out the parts you like and ignoring or re-interpreting those you don't.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
~~James Madison, Federalist No. 45


"...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788


"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of policy, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
James Madison, speech to the First US Congress.


"Don't be idiots mouthing absurdities. It is obvious that this general statement is qualified and limited by the Constitution itself in what follows. No right reasoning person would ever conclude that that the enumeration of the particulars wouldn't set definitive parameters on the meaning of 'general Welfare, ' nor would reasonably intelligent people ever conclude that the specifying of the particulars was only intended to confuse and mislead as to what is meant by the 'general Welfare' phrase."
James Madison

t3knomanser: Actually, I'll make a controversial statement: The US does not have a problem with gun violence. Possibly, in the 90s, there was a problem, but to really know if guns were an issue, we'd have to look at the general crime stats and see how much of the population was gun crime.

At any rate, gun crime doesn't really pose a major threat. 400,000 incidents (that's crimes committed with a gun- not murders or shootings, and it would include illegal discharge) a year in a population of 3M? Background noise. I'd be more worried about swimming pools and beaches.

Gun grabbing is bad politics. It pisses people off that would otherwise support you. I'd say most Democrats have figured this out. I don't think Obama will fark with it -- leave to locals to deal with. I might be wrong, but he'll alienate large amounts of support if he does.

I'm just going to vote for Obama and join the NRA, hopefully they'll cancel out.

Oh, good, Super Soaker MaxD isn't in there. I like to fill it with holy water to fight evil.

josephstalin: The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or sporting, although those are certainly legitimate activities.

This needs to be repeated. The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to protect hunters or target shooters. It exists to ensure that the citizens are armed and familiar with the use of weapons. Why? Because in a time of war, it is the citizens that must defend their borders. Because in a time of national disaster, it is the citizens who must maintain order. Because in a time of tyranny, it is the citizens who must take up arms and oppose them.

We are a nation of citizens and are committed to the defense of our fellow citizens.

I find it ironic that he supports such measures considering that most gun bans were basically "Jim Crow" laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the "degenerate races". (Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, etc)

Heck, California's "May Issue" CCW laws are one of the last Jim Crow laws still on the books. (new window) Chicago's gun laws were originally aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of black people.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control (1993) (new window)

kmt11: agentxavier: When will people start to realize how bad barry obama would be for this country? Hopefully before November.

Both candidates suck. We need a farking do-over...

Couldn't agree m

latest republican campaign strategem:

Both Suck, so Why Not Vote For MCPANCAKES?!?

MonkeyVegetables: i think the supreme court decision on the DC ban will tell us all we need to know about the next 50 years of gun control in this country

I'm still predicting that the authoritarian judges will go with authoritarianism. . and not this faux-conservatism that millions on the right have bought into.

I predict a rude awakening.

/maybe not.

DarnoKonrad: I don't think Obama will fark with it -- leave to locals to deal with. I might be wrong, but he'll alienate large amounts of support if he does.

I think he'll avoid discussing the issue at all. It's a live wire; if he doesn't support gun control, he'll alienate his base. If he discusses gun control openly, he'll alienate the crossover voters.

During his time in office? He's not going to have the political capital to push those issues forward. He'll need to focus on foreign policy and economic issues far more.

UNC_Samurai: Let's amend that, shall we?

A guide to which of your guns Obama will spend some political capital attempting to get legislators to unsuccessfully ban.

Obama is going to have bigger tasks to work towards than gun control. Health care, energy policy, and foreign policy are going to be the issues where he ends up spending all his efforts.

That's assuming he gets elected, of course.

bingoooooo

Well, considering he was a constitutional law professor, and he's said he interpreted the second amendment to mean a personal-oriented view of ownership rights (rather than for a "militia")- and then considering that website is just someone ferreting out all the comments on gun control Obama's made in the last fifteen years, and extrapolating and interpreting them into a "ZOMG HE'S GONNA TAKE OUR GUNNNSSSSS!" screed...

(insert nifty fail pic here)

Besides, really, I think we have more to worry about then gun control. I think that's number thirty-seven on his list of things to do, right after learn Portuguese (obscure reference?).

He definitely needs to leave this to the states/local governments. We've got much bigger issues on the federal level to worry about.

I do not think the Democrats will go near gun control in this election, if they can avoid it. It is one of the big issues that cost them the House in 94.

However they may not have a choice with a Supreme Court ruling due this month on the issue.

Either way expect an increase in NRA membership

t3knomanser: Because in a time of tyranny, it is the citizens who must take up arms and oppose them.

I'm really trying to understand this aspect, not because I disagree with it, but because the way it only gets mentioned when the 2nd amendment is threatened. Personally, I think by the time anyone gets around to fully repealing the 2nd amendment, we will already have lost several other key rights anyways, and the point would be moot.

t3knomanser: Why? Because in a time of war, it is the citizens that must defend their borders. Because in a time of national disaster, it is the citizens who must maintain order. Because in a time of tyranny, it is the citizens who must take up arms and oppose them.

Coming out and saying this makes you a dangerous commodity. Whenever I've said this in any political debate, I get looks like I'm crazy. "What? You own guns to kill people and you should be in jail." Or "People like you give honest gun owners a bad name." The last oen realyl gets me. Liberals/Democrats for sure, but many conservatives/Republicans as well have completely lost touch with why our country was set up the way it was. People in this nation have gotten far more complacent and naive than the founding fathers could have ever believed. We will gladly give away our rights for promises of security and a new season of Survivor.

I'm planning to move to Alaska in a few years, and before Obama becomes president I am going to be sure to go ahead and buy an SKS rifle with a folding stock and at least a 30 round mag. Grizzly in full charge wont stand a chance against 30-50 rounds of 7.62x39 fired as fast as I can pull the trigger.

Just in case.

OK so what's the analogous issue on the right to the lefties' gun control? Is it illegal immigration? Is it gay marriage?

You farking people, I hope you shoot each other. Honestly I really hope you thin the herd.

specialk111: He definitely needs to leave this to the states/local governments. We've got much bigger issues on the federal level to worry about.

Gun control is as much a Federal issue as is free speech, due process,property rights, privacy rights etc, unless you would prefer to leave those things up to states/local governments also.

Churchill2004: Ace Frehley's Ghost: If I were the sort who would "THIS", that's what I would do here. The Dems have realized that gun control will not win them elections.

Then why doesn't he come out and state his position clearly?

Maybe he's too busy talking about things that matter.

In the same way that upper class hate the lower middle class, I hate you for the same values. You're a mixed up bunch of dullards filling a hole in society. If we can feed in some termination devices to off a few of you, then all the better. You kill your attacker, your wife, your baby, your self. It's all good. Thin your useless selves out.

ilambiquated: Maybe he's too busy talking about things that matter

Are you really going to tell me that Obama's too busy to have a clear, unambiguous statement of his position on an issue as big as gun control?

Phil sucks at trolling.

exit: Personally, I think by the time anyone gets around to fully repealing the 2nd amendment, we will already have lost several other key rights anyways, and the point would be moot.

It's a checkpoint. An armed populace exerts a pressure on the state, simply by existing. Even if the state attempts to control all weapons, there will still be a cache and populace familiar with their use.

Cannons were "the last argument of kings". In a society that declares everyone noble and entitled to the full rights of a king, it's only fitting that the populace have the right to acquire the material to make such an argument.

josephstalin: "What? You own guns to kill people and you should be in jail." Or "People like you give honest gun owners a bad name."

Look at it this way, the last armed revolt in the US happened in living memory. Thank goodness that the citizens of Athens could steal the weapons they needed to defend free elections. I'd rather that my peers not need to resort to theft. I'm more than happy to trust that my fellow citizens will use their power responsibly.

Put another way, if you won't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with a vote? The latter is infinitely more powerful.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

better site for info. Every time he's mentioned a ban it was to get rid of illegal guns. those that have been involved in crimes or made their way into the public through unlicensed dealers. He's wanted to crack down on inner city gun dealers is all it amounts to.

FARK ME WITH A STICK

I really like(d) Obama but you ain't takin' my guns.

Thomas Jefferson himself believed that all countries should have a regular revolution.

Governments should be afraid of their people, not the other way around.

ACEllis: Phil sucks at trolling.

Maybe cause I was actually serious. I really am. If you could develop a trend to upgun everyone in the red states you could effect a real turnover of humans. There needs to be an evolution in those farking states for sure.

TheOther: latest republican campaign strategem:

Both Suck, so Why Not Vote For MCPANCAKES?!?

I find it amazing that as much as people hate these two bowls of shiat they STILL won't look at any of the third parties.

/ and I vote
// hoping that Virginia is a battleground state in '08
/// too young to remember LBJ in '64