A silver bullet for Obama »
Posted By gamahuche 3 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsThe Supreme Court justices have just made it safer for gun owners to vote Democratic. McCain cheered the court's ruling, but Obama may prove the biggest winner of all.
Read Full Story at boston.com »
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 219
-
-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 2 weeks ago
Perhaps it needs redefining even more concretely!
Will this take some heat off Obama and make his election more likely?!
Reply-
0%
jimdoze3 months, 2 weeks ago
"Will this take some heat off Obama and make his election more likely?!"
It seems to me that this outcome would fall within the definition of tragedy.
Furthermore, I can't help but wonder, that if the composition of the court changes, that the interpretation might somehow again be challenged.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama has gone on record as opposing gun ownership and just last February said he agreed with the D.C. gun ban.
Of course, he reversed himself yet again after the Supreme Court ruling came out and said he agreed with that one.
Obama is a lying sack of dung who makes Bill Clinton look like a man of strong conviction.
Obama's hometown, Chicago, has a similar gun ban in effect that likely will be challenged and overturned -- no thanks to Obama.
Reply-
-
0%
Candida3 months, 2 weeks ago
libsRfunny,
In what sense was he lying? He favored gun control and thought that it was constitutional. What you seem to forget is that so did four of the judges of the Supreme Court, so this was very far from a cut and dry case. Now that the court has decided, he accepts the court's decision. Where is the lying?
Reply-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
Candida,
Don't you find it somewhat frightening that SCOTUS seems not to know what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say or mean on a number of issues? This is only the latest.
Instead of being like lawyers, just searching for precedent, these people are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Both liberals AND conservatives should be shaking in their boots at recent rulings. These people clearly didn't read the history or supporting documents to know what the founders intended in all cases. And it's not just partisan politics.
There should have been a unanimous ruling that the second amendment guarantees an individual right, just as searches, seizures, comingling religion and government, etc. should have been unanimous against--based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's not like the founders' discussions aren't there for all to see.
A great recent source on this particular topic is Halbrook's "The Founders' Second Amendment."
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
If you look at the past, regardless of political affiliation, it appears to me once appointed to the SCOTUS, justices indeed focused on their responsibility to the constitution. The more recent appointees don't strike me as capable of understanding the role and have personal agendas that get in the way of their objective view of the constitution. The President regardless of party needs to make these appointments based on scholarship. Politics will obviously be involved, but did anyone really think for a moment that Harriet Miers was anything more than a drunk driving ticket fixer? There should be far more demand for intellectual integrity for the job.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
StarLord3 months ago
There would have been a pos, if not for the third sentence. If you want people to agree with you (i.e., if you want to sway people to your point of view), I would suggest that you moderate your language.
Reply
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
I think it will help Obama, since he's come out and said he won't try to take away at least some guns and he believes the second amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. He's a politician, and the flip-flop isn't going to hurt him a lot, since they all do it to get votes. And McCain is a very weak candidate whose track record on the second amendment is only marginally better.
I think ultimately, he'll be true to his ties to disarmament efforts such as the U.N., Joyce Foundation, Soros, Rainbow/PUSH, International Association of Chiefs of Police, etc. But he could create a pretty horrific backlash if he does. Of course he'll appoint leftist Supreme Court justices, because at heart he is a leftist. it shows up where it matters--his votes in his job as a public servant.
Right now he just wants to do and say whatever it takes to get elected, and he has a lot of very wealthy people and citizens sharing his opinions pulling for him.
Reply-
0%
alakazam3 months, 2 weeks ago
This is very possible and the biggest stumbling block in my personal consideration of voting for him.
I will not vote for anyone who threatens private gun ownership in the US.
Take away the guns and see how fast the police state springs up...aided by alien military forces under the guise of UN Peacekeeping.
Reply-
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
He has advocated banning all semi-automatics and all handguns, which includes most of the most popular guns in the U.S.
The U.N. is putting a lot of pressure on the U.S. and he signed onto their millenium declaration, which seeks to disarm the world's citizens.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
injest3 months, 2 weeks ago
FTA
"That helps explain Barack Obama's dizzyingly inconsistent positions on District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court last week.
"Obama had supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns,"
"he endorsed the gun ban being challenged in Heller while campaigning for president. In November"
"told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
"in April, he refused to give a clear answer on the grounds that "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."
Uhm isn't Obama's field of "expertise" Constitutional law?
And he got this one SOOOOOOOOO wrong.
This would be like McCain not knowing where the pilot sat in an A-4 Skyhawk (that's what he flew)
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
There have been plenty of local and regional laws superseding the second amendment. Go back to Wyatt Earp in Kansas City,(no firearms within city limits), New York has it's own expensive and hard to get license for guns within the City, Philadelphia tried recently but was shot down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I would imagine all these laws will now have to pass through the court. Remember 4 of these justices also believed it was constitutional.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
This ruling seems to take the emphasis off "the militia" which was seen slightly differently by the earlier decision. (It's really been quite a while since such a case made it's way before the court.) I happen to think this was a correct constitutional decision, that the source of America's gun violence is sociological not actually the availability of guns. I hope to actually read the briefs on this, but there are often major disagreements among the justices on constitutional points of law, it seems obvious to me what is meant, yet precedents were set for local restrictions of guns in the past. I think that DC's law was poorly drafted, I wonder if other cities will have their gun laws challenged and if they will pass the constitutional muster?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
alakazam3 months, 2 weeks ago
No Paradox.
The Man embraces the Second Amendment along with the rest or he does not.
The President is required to defend ALL the Constitution..not just the parts he likes.
People complain about Politicians flip-flopping.
I agree it can be ridiculous.
Only a fool would refuse to change his opinions in the face of evidence. That's the job description for Public Servant...is it not?
Reply-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 2 weeks ago
The paradox that the story identifies, to which I was referring, is that while appearing to lose in regard to the issue - Obama has consistently declared himself against gun-ownership - the fact of this decision at this time makes the topic moot and he will not be obliged to make any significant personal statements about it..
e.g. "Mr Obama are you for or against the freedom to own guns?"
"The Supreme Court just decided that issue, my opinion is therefore irrelevant. Next?"
Of course someone's next question may be about the right to bomb abortion clinics but that won't have quite the traction of this specifically American cause celebre..
Reply-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.51 Replies
-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 2 weeks ago
As a candidate for the Illinois Legislature in the 1990s,
FTA [on the one hand..]
Obama had supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns," so it wasn't surprising that he endorsed the gun ban being challenged in Heller while campaigning for president. In November, for example, his campaign told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." In February, when a questioner during a televised forum said, "You support the D.C. handgun ban," Obama readily agreed: "Right."
Reply-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 2 weeks ago
FTA [on the other hand]
By March, however, his spokesman would no longer say whether Obama considered the gun ban constitutional, and when the senator was asked about it in April, he refused to give a clear answer on the grounds that "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence." Still, when the court issued its 5-4 ruling last Thursday, Obama claimed that his views had been vindicated. "I have always believed," his statement began, "that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms." Then again, reported the Associated Press, "the campaign would not answer directly . . . when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court."
Reply-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 2 weeks ago
Sigh... In certain respects I seem to have served up a red-herring today..
Back to school again, I guess.
I guess that if I live to be 120 - another few years - I'll never get a handle on the US and guns.
A unique culture!!
- And no - Don't quote Switzerland to me!
a) Its a completely different scenario - even if you take the word militia as a key to it
b) It isn't working - too much domestic usage - and is likely to be repealed soon..
**
I was once threatened with a gun by a crack-head in NYC but it didn't give me the idea that I should join the club - either guns or crack.
Reply-
0%
foksipayne3 months, 2 weeks ago
I do not own a gun, but I wouldn't want someone else telling me I couldn't, should i decide that I want to buy one.
Reply -
0%
Dicax_Maximus3 months, 2 weeks ago
gama - Sometimes they're usefull.....
Got "accosted" by a couple of knife wielding lowlifes in Moscow (Russia, not the USA). Not surprisingly, they wished to transfer ownership of my wallet to them. I was fortunate that I had a superior tool of negotiation (Schtekin 9mm semi auto) at my disposal.
End result of said negotiations ? Somewhat noxious smell in the air and two contenders for the 200m world record.....
Had I not been armed ???? Maybe I'd have walked away, maybe I wouldn't. Maybe they'd have walked away, maybe they wouldn't.... (I'm 20 years outta practice ex-martial arts, but in my youth, wouldn't have been toooo worried about a couple of idiots with knives).....
End result was no robbery, no damage done.......
I'll take the "equaliser" any day, over being a victim.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca3 months, 2 weeks ago
But DM, you have a different mind set than USA, till the IRA bombings in England in the 70's most police in the UK had no guns.
I read a post by tang where he stated he had 3 AK-47's, that is a different mindset than self protection.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar3 months, 2 weeks ago
That's because the Second is more then protection from thugs. An interpretation framed around the main reason for the Second would actually state that the citizen should have firepower to equal the army.
Reply-
0%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, at least the ability to have the citizens pull off a coup d'etat, should the need arise
Reply-
-
0%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
I certainly agree with you, but we're dealing with human psychology as well, not just points of law.
If you look at the various insurgent entities and organized militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are certainly doing a good job of being annoying our troops, but then, our troops are not deploying their full destructive capabilities either.
Do you believe that US troops would be that brutal against US citizens?
Reply-
0%
foksipayne3 months, 2 weeks ago
Only if they believe the Prez if he says those citizen are "terrorists" or somthing of the like.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 2 weeks ago
deathray:
Look what they did to the WWI vets during the depression. Led by McArthur. he turned the troops lose on veterans and their families.
Yeah there are some sick ones out there whose political views override their patriotism.
They think this country is for the rich and powerful and that the others should just serve their masters.
Reply
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
Beau78903 months, 2 weeks ago
So what kind of weaponry do you think it would take for citizens to effect regime change, if that's the meaning of the 2nd?
The amendment itself doesn't get specific, but only states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It seems we should be allowed to keep and bear anything and everything.
Seems to me the only way to constitutionally prevent citizens from owning nukes is to amend the Constitution. I can't imagine that happening any time soon.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Mdiar3 months, 2 weeks ago
I would have to read the direct text to be certain. Even if they don't its not so outrageous to get a treaty passed that bans the ownership of nuclear weaponry by private citizens. In addition, consider that drugs can be made illegal, what is to stop the separate components needed to make a nuclear device to be illegal? Another back door to banning nuclear weaponry from the common man.
Reply-
-
0%
Mdiar3 months, 2 weeks ago
A treaty of any sort that the US signs specifying that only governments have the right to nuclear weapons should do it and the other party could be any government who finds the possibility of a private citizen of the US having a nuclear weapon to be an incredibly dangerous thing.
Machine guns, tanks and simple bombs? I have no issues with those; possession of those would keep in tune with the reasoning behind the Second... I DO have an issue with the US having a standing army, which is specifically against the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
(for those who don't believe me regarding the army)
Reply-
0%
Candida3 months, 2 weeks ago
Would a treaty with another country override the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment? Couldn't they then ban handguns and all weapons the same way? Suppose the federal government wanted to get rid of all arms outside the military, couldn't they then sign a treaty with a country, let's say Granada, banning all arms in individual possession?
Reply-
0%
Mdiar3 months, 2 weeks ago
I believe so.
"all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
Essentially putting it on the same legal authority as an amendment I believe, by and large, I think it is faster to do this then get an amendment passed overall. Not sure.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
Treaties are between states...
The Bill of Rights is not a treaty, but a contract between citizens and the Federal government.
Reply
-
-
0%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
Hey Beau -
I don't believe that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment, but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said something like, ""Every generation needs a new revolution." and The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."?
There are those who cleave to the 2nd Amendment as a way of being prepare for any such eventuality.
The recent SCOTUS decision only upholds the right to own a rifle or a handgun.
Reply-
0%
Beau78903 months, 2 weeks ago
I actually wonder if it really was the intent of the 2nd amendment.
The founders were smart guys, but I don't think they could have foreseen all of the factors that now make overthrowing the U.S. government an impracticality (to say the least).
You're right about the recent decision. But what really is the intent of the amendment?
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
Beau, Jefferson was pretty clear about his idea of the 2nd amendment. That the natural tendency was for government to gain power and freedom loose... that was indeed the reason for the 2nd amendment in his view.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus3 months, 2 weeks ago
HB - Funny you shoul mention that.... I happened to be a fairly good aquaintence on one of the two cops that changed the UK's ENTIRE mindset as regards weapons for the cops....
Precis :-
Two cops go up against 4 bad guys in the middle of an armed robbery.
Bad guys had :-
1. Schmeisser sub machine gun
2. Magnum .357
3. (unknown make by me) 9 mm semi auto
4. Sawn off shotgun
Good guys had :-
2 x .38 revolvers
End result ? Both cops down AFTER HITTING with 11 out of 12 shots they fired, no bad guy's OUT.....
NOW, the cops are armed fairly well....
I'm not going to go into the argument that had there been a "responsible" citizen (or 2 or 3) that had been armed, the outcome would probably have been different......
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca3 months, 2 weeks ago
No argueement from me, just that till the 70's there was a vast difference in gun laws with Canada being somewhat in the middle of both countries, so growing up one learns different views is all.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate3 months, 2 weeks ago
3 AK-47's that is a different mindset than self protection.
How do? I'd think you could protect yourself quite well with those,,,, even is you have a large group after you or if in the guture you have to protect yourself from an out of control government
I own a shot gun,,, I wanted something my wife or kids could point at the door or hall way if need be,,,, won't kill the neighbors,,,,, point and shoot,,, we keep it put away,,, with the shells not too close,,, and we teach safety,,,, as well as pray we will never have to use it, but resolved if that time comes that we will indeeed use it
Reply-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
We don't see enemies everywhere in the U.S. Until the anti-gun extremists started freaking out and endlessly babbling in the media, we just all had guns and didn't think much about it or talk much about it.
Little boys drew pictures of tanks and rifles in school, we had rifle teams at school and recreation facilities, olympic hopefuls practiced openly everywhere, and most kids just learned to shoot. The scouts and 4-H had gun recreation where they learned firearms safety, and ROTC kids marched around with guns at schools everywhere.
The media and the Bra-dy campaign are the ones that endlessly shriek "Criminals might shoot us. Quick! Let's disarm ourselves!" And notice that the ones yelling mostly are suffering from a trauma event themselves, so they're just obsessed, and committed to spreading their hysterical response.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 2 weeks ago
DM:
Absolutely!!!! Guns in the right hands deter crime. In the wrong hands increase crime. It is not the gun. It is the user.
Just like alcohol or any other thing that can be abused and misused it is the abuser who cannot handle it.
If everybody had guns crime would go down. The reasons criminals can use guns is because not everyone is armed.
If everyone is armed who are you going to pick on? You can't pick on anyone, because someone ese is going to stop you. Gangs wouldn't be able to operate as freely. Because most citizens wouldn't hesitate to defend their fellow citizens.
The problem we have now is a bunch of do gooders who don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Reply-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
Gun control was favored by many years ago, yet as many local bans were tried frankly no difference was measured. It's hard to make the case now. I can't really imagine anyone seriously objecting to reasonable licensing though, I believe all dealers already do background checks, it's just individual private sales that are outside of scrutiny. I think an equilibrium will be found that allows for both the 2nd amendment and the elimination of rogue "privateers" selling guns to kids in the cities. It must be a good bill though, carefully drafted.
Reply-
0%
alakazam3 months, 2 weeks ago
I post later in the thread about purchasing a gun for myself, apparently to some it sounds relatively easy. It's only easy if you have a clean record.
The state I live in has taken strict measures to control the flow of guns into the wrong hands.
Buy or provide a gun for a Felon or anyone legally excluded from ownership...Go to prison for ten years.
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 2 weeks ago
alakazam:
Well I know here in CA you have a ten day waiting period. I used to be able to buy a gun the same day. No more.
That is good that they are checking, but a ten day period is just to long.
Hell if I wanted to buy illegally I could have it within a day.
But I don't support underground firearms trading. That is where the criminals get their guns.
I'm glad they have strict measures. They just need to inforce the laws we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
Especially for women and the frail, it levels the playing field in the case of home invasion, car jacking, and public abduction. At least I have a fighting chance.
Of course, women and the elderly are at a significant disadvantage in coutries that disarm their citizens. Look at the brutal rapes that cause permanent devastating injuries and other violent attacks occurring in several African countries, and the men and others in the community are helpless to stop it because they've been disarmed.
U.S. citizens have a duty to stop tyranny, and you can see the active tyrants, such as Daly in Chicago, Bloomberg in New York, Fenty in DC, and wealthy bullies like George Soros, all actively trying to disarm ordinary law-abiding citizens. Who do you think they'll vote for?
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
aniokly3 months, 2 weeks ago
There is something about being against the manufacture, sale or possession of guns that indicates Gun Control. The man is a gun grabber, and if Democrats cannot figure that out, I guarntee Republicans, and Independent gun owners will.
Reply -
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
Here's a short article by University of Maryland professor John Lott that covers some of the evidence:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347690,00.html
Here's an article that showcases several instances where Obama is directly tied to the Joyce Foundation, United Nations, Soros' Open Society, and other anti-second amendment groups that favor citizen disarmament.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080626/pl_usnw/r...
I've heard that Obama is a fast learner, and I am hoping he has looked into this in some detail and decided those efforts are misguided.
Reply
-
-
0%
Grrr3 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama is not against gun ownership, as far as I know. To state his position more accurately, he is not opposed to constitutionally legislated handgun control.
And this does not make it an irrelevant issue, as it was yet another 5-4 SCOTUS split along party lines, and the next president will likely have an affect on that balance.
Reply-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama knows people will not be disarmed after seeing what happens in other countries that successfully disarmed the people. They always have a growing problem of home invasions, even by unarmed teen thugs, since the criminals know the law-abiding won't be able to protect themselves, especially if they are elderly or weak.
I do expect him to support banning features that make guns safe and accessible for women and the frail under the false impression it will make people safer. Gesture politics convinces people one is "doing something." In countries where none of this is banned and with high percentages of gun ownership, there is less crime.
In New Jersey, gun ban central, people mostly haven't turned in guns, and even leave the state to avoid doing so. DC is limiting handguns to revolvers, so all those pistols in people's homes will still be illegal. Many people aren't going to let tyrants disarm them.
Reply
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama has actually stated that he doesn't think citizens should be able to own guns, and he has shown support for the U.N. Millenium Declaration, which clearly indicates the U.N. opposes citizen ownership of small arms. It doesn't get much clearer than that. But that was a long time ago, and people mature.
I'm banking on Obama looking at Darfur, Congo, Zimbabwe, Mexico, and other places where people have been mostly disarmed or limited in access to firearms and realizing it just makes them sitting ducks for thugs who will always be armed.
The very people claiming police brutality and accusing the military of torture say in their next sentence that only the police and military should be armed. Obama's a smart guy, and I expect him to have a bit of cognitive dissonance when he thinks about this.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
It seems Obama has a fair and reasonable idea about both the 2nd amendment and keeping guns out of the hands of kids in the City. The statement about being against ownership was made by a staffer, not Obama himself. See this factcheck link.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obam...
Many liberal thinkers and indeed police dept.s believed gun bans would help in gang violence, but today there is little evidence that the bans changed anything one way or another.
Many former proponents have adapted a much different stance in light of new knowledge. Again though, as a legislator, both he and McCain would have more impact on the subject than as president.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
Actually, gama (your avatar name always cracks me up), the decision reached by the SCOTUS has been a plank of the Democratic Party since 2004.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks DR!
I try to stay abreast of everything too, but operating in different areas on different continents does sometimes leave unfilled gaps in different areas - including the precise political state-of-play.
Great to see you here! I was thinking of you this morning but was unaware of your recent activity. The last few days because of a family-oriented trip to NYC.
Reply-
0%
blinkers3 months, 2 weeks ago
Good thread, gama, but from the perspective of where I live, best not commented on. The debate on "an armed or disarmed populace" and the 2nd Amendment is strictly a domestic one.
In long years of residence here, I've occasionally asked incoming Americans if they felt insecure, not having any right to own a firearm. The answer, after a time, is always "no", on being asked why, the response is usually along the line of "Because I know no-one else has a gun either". But the social contexts cannot really be compared.
(Hope your NY venture finally worked out well, by the way).
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
ani -
I'm having a hard time typing today, but here is what you want:
"We will protect Americans' right to own firearms"
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
The statement is on page 16.
Reply-
0%
Skeptic3 months, 2 weeks ago
Actually, page 18. The complete quote:
"We will protect American's Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorist by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."
It should be noted - "... as President Bush proposed ..." but it is not his failure, it is the failure of the legislature to act on the proposal.
Reply-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa3 months, 2 weeks ago
Many people fall into the rut of believing the ol wives tales about the parties. These often, like many tall tales and legends have a grain of truth in them. The GOP once was fiscally conservative, The Democrats once were for gun regulation, but changed their behavior as new knowledge was gleaned. This is documented well in DR's lin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
