Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners

Why Obama is vulnerable on the Second Amendment

Jacob Sullum | September 24, 2008

Last spring, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms, Democrats hoped the decision would neutralize the gun issue. Instead the ruling, by inviting debate over which kinds of gun control are constitutional, has made the issue more salient.

That's bad news for Barack Obama, who the National Rifle Association says "would be the most anti-gun president in American history." The Democratic nominee pays lip service to Second Amendment rights while calling for "commonsense," "reasonable" restrictions. But Obama's sense of what's reasonable, while common among the left-liberal politicians and activists inside his comfort zone, may seem decidedly unreasonable to the pro-gun voters the NRA is trying to mobilize against him.

Since these voters made a decisive difference in the 2000 presidential election and arguably in 2004 as well, this is a threat Obama ignores at his peril. The NRA plans to spend $15 million urging voters in battleground states of the Midwest and Mountain West to "Defend Freedom" and "Defeat Obama." Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is running radio spots in swing states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia that promise "Barack Obama and John McCain will both make sure we keep our guns."

Although Factcheck.org faults the NRA for distorting Obama's record, every falsifiable claim in its TV spots has a factual basis. In one ad, a Virginia hunter complains that Obama supports "a huge new tax on my guns and ammo," referring to a position Obama took in 1999. He adds that the Illinois senator voted to "ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition," a reference to his 2005 vote for a federal ban on rifle ammunition "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability," phrasing that arguably covered deer-hunting ammunition.

Finally, the hunter complains that Obama wants to ban shotguns and rifles used for hunting, alluding to his support for reinstating the federal "assault weapon" ban. That law arbitrarily prohibited firearms based mainly on cosmetic features that made them look scary to gun-naïve politicians.

In another NRA ad, an Iraq war veteran from Wisconsin complains that "Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense." In a 1996 questionnaire, Obama's state Senate campaign said he supported a handgun ban. Today Obama says that was a mistake, but the questionnaire bears his handwriting, so he clearly saw it without changing the supposedly erroneous answer.

As a state legislator, Obama voted against a bill shielding people who use handguns for self-defense in their homes from prosecution for violating local gun registration rules. Most tellingly, Obama has repeatedly expressed support for local handgun bans such as the District of Columbia's, which the Supreme Court overturned, and Chicago's, which faces a constitutional challenge.

"What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," Obama says. The line, meant to reassure gun owners, highlights his peculiar view that the extent of an American's constitutional rights depends on where he lives.

The specifics of Obama's views may turn out to be less important than the sense that he's an urban sophisticate who is unfamiliar with firearms and does not even understand the gun control laws he supports. In a 2004 debate, Obama explained the rationale for the "assault weapon" ban this way: "Unless you're seeing a lot of deer out there wearing bullet-proof vests, then there is no purpose for many of the guns." He thereby conflated the "assault weapon" and "armor-piercing bullet" issues, apparently not realizing that ordinary hunting ammunition can penetrate "bullet-proof vests."

The NRA ads seek to reinforce the impression of Obama's cluelessness. "Where is this guy from?" asks the hunter. "He's probably never been hunting a day in his life." Two of the ads allude to Obama's notorious comment that working-class voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest "get bitter" during hard economic times and "cling to guns or religion." What will Obama cling to when voters question his commitment to the Second Amendment?

© Copyright by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Roger Maltz|9.24.08 @ 7:50AM|#

He'd deserve it, 'fo sho.

|9.24.08 @ 8:10AM|#

You know the free ride the Republicans get on gun control is amusing. They are all for guns until they send their thugs out to take them away. When they sent Blackwater out to confiscate weapons I didn't hear much from the NRA I still don't. Rudy Guiliani is another Republican who confiscated something like 90,000 weapons and doesn't get knocked around much. Hmmm do I sense a double standard? I don't care what people say I care what they do. When you look at Republicans lack of respect for privacy I would get worried more about their lists of who has guns and them looking through the walls of your house to see where they are. I have a suspicion they would target the gun owners for special attention in any situation.

|9.24.08 @ 8:38AM|#

He thereby conflated the "assault weapon" and "armor-piercing bullet" issues, apparently not realizing that ordinary hunting ammunition can penetrate "bullet-proof vests."

Any rifle with a real, non-pistol caliber (and not a .22) will penetrate Kevlar body armor. Pistols will not, nor will shotguns unless they are firing sabots (I'm not 100% sure about that).

I get really, really tired of journalists and politicians who know Jack and shit about guns (and Jack left town) but comment on them as if they do.

|9.24.08 @ 8:41AM|#

Hey if gun owners want to vote for McCain fine - unless they are making well into the six figures they will see their standard of living continue to decline as jobs move away, our debt climbs, we start paying higher interest rates to China and Japan for them to keep buying our debt, oil prices go higher due to the devaluing of the dollar, tax cuts continue to go to the wealthy and continued deregulation under McCain brings up more eventual meltdowns ala the financial sector - but they'll have their guns - but will they be able to afford the bullets?

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ|9.24.08 @ 8:45AM|#

Rudy Guiliani is another Republican

I wouldn't have known that without a score card.

tax cuts continue to go to the wealthy and continued deregulation under McCain brings up more eventual meltdowns ala the financial sector - but they'll have their guns - but will they be able to afford the bullets?

Damn the un-regulated markets to hell, they just can't provide for the common man. If there were only someone who knew more than me who could manage the price of bread from a central location.

Gilbert Martin|9.24.08 @ 8:54AM|#

"He thereby conflated the "assault weapon" and "armor-piercing bullet" issues, apparently not realizing that ordinary hunting ammunition can penetrate "bullet-proof vests."

Also, by yapping about what is or isn't necessary for hunting, Obama continues to demonsrate he doesn't understand what the Second Amendment is about.

It isn't about facilitating hunting.

Alan Vanneman|9.24.08 @ 8:54AM|#

Yes, I also am sick and tired of watching my thirty-ought-six rounds bounce off those damn kevlar vests of the deer in Rock Creek Park! They think they are so damn smart! How I long for the sweet, sweet sound of copper-jacketed steel entering helpless, living flesh! I want armor-piercing bullets! I want armor-piercing bullets! I want armor-piercing bullets!

If I may cool my fervor for a moment, I would be happy, and probably will be happy, with "sensible" gun laws for DC that will allow people to keep loaded handguns in their homes free from hassle. But it's rants like this that make some of us folks snicker at the gun crowd. Try wiping the drool from your faces from time to time. You'll look a whole lot more presentable.

Oh, and as for the "horror" of having Obama as President. Get over it, and get used to it. What's gonna be, is gonna be.

rhywun|9.24.08 @ 8:56AM|#

Barack Obama will be vulnerable on the Second Amendment this November

I am shocked!

Nevertheless, where does the 2nd Amendment rank on the issues people (all people, not just libertarians) care about? Is it even in the top 10?

|9.24.08 @ 9:01AM|#

But it's rants like this that make some of us folks snicker at the gun crowd. Try wiping the drool from your faces from time to time. You'll look a whole lot more presentable.

You should take your own advice, Vanneman, and wipe Obama's jizz from your chin. You still won't look presentable, but at least you won't look like a fluffer.

User Loser,

Blackwater confiscated guns somewhere? I missed that news article. Do you have a link?

Also, maybe Guliani didn't win the R nomination precisely because of his stance on guns.

I have usually voted R, but would never have voted for Guliani (then again, I am not going to vote for McCain either the 1st and 2nd A are both important to me.)

Gilbert Martin|9.24.08 @ 9:06AM|#

"Blackwater confiscated guns somewhere? I missed that news article. Do you have a link?"

He's probably talking soemthing that happend in Iraq (or that somebody claimed happened in Iraq).

Which has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ|9.24.08 @ 9:07AM|#

But it's rants like this that make some of us folks snicker at the gun crowd.

The most salient line from the article to my eyes,

"As a state legislator, Obama voted against a bill shielding people who use handguns for self-defense in their homes from prosecution for violating local gun registration rules.",

seems a rather important point. Though the issue is about local castle doctrine, the violation of which is the sanctioning of acts of violence against one's person, which a president has little direct control over; I think appointees to the supreme court will make the difference.

That is, if you need to look for ways Obama-as-against-self-defense matters, then that's it. And if you need to be reassured that the supreme court would ever get to the point, remember that the (first) Heller case got that far.

Sorry, I meant to end the blockquote and not start a new one. Just the first line is a quote.

|9.24.08 @ 9:08AM|#

Oh, and as for the "horror" of having Obama as President. Get over it, and get used to it. What's gonna be, is gonna be.

and

where does the 2nd Amendment rank on the issues people (all people, not just libertarians) care about? Is it even in the top 10?

Maybe it will be when a vocal minority are willing to use violence to defend their rights.

How many Ruby Rigdes or Wacos are you willing to accept to enforce your gun laws?

|9.24.08 @ 9:09AM|#

Look, you can't appease gun owners, they always feel bitter and oppressed and fearful about the world. They don't really love freedom, they love guns and guns are the most important thing to them. Its no wonder these geniuses are also among the most religious people in the country.

"When they sent Blackwater out to confiscate weapons I didn't hear much from the NRA I still don't. Rudy Guiliani is another Republican who confiscated something like 90,000 weapons and doesn't get knocked around much." To be fair, Blackwater was brought into New Orleans by a Democratic local administration. I'm also reasonably certain that it was the NOPD and the LSP who did all the door-kicking and gun-snatching, but that's neither here nor there. As for Guiliani getting a free pass, have you even visited a pro-gun blog or discussion forum?

-

I have no idea where 2nd Amendment issues rank with the average joe, but there are quite a few gun owners out there, and you can bet that 2nd Amendment issues rank pretty high with them.

It's unfortunate that most pro-gun types are McCain supporters, but only an idiot would fail to understand why. Gun owners tend towards the GOP for exactly the same reason that GLBT folks tend towards the Democrats.

loupeznik|9.24.08 @ 9:10AM|#

Alan,

Are you arguing that your character represents someone here on this comment section?

Most of what I read here and in my circle of friends is the politicians are yet again trying to regulate something that they know shit about. Sort of like the economy.

|9.24.08 @ 9:12AM|#

He's probably talking soemthing that happend in Iraq (or that somebody claimed happened in Iraq).

I was thinking that or New Orleans. But I don't think in either case it was private security companies that took weapons. I think it was government agents both times.

In Iraq the military came to see the error in their ways. Probably not so much the police in New Orleans.

|9.24.08 @ 9:13AM|#

Look, you can't appease gun owners, they always feel bitter and oppressed and fearful about the world

It's cute that you depend on the police to protect you. By the way, I just called them and told them I saw a Japanese Maple in your yard. I hope you don't love your dog that much.

Loupeznik|9.24.08 @ 9:14AM|#

James,

"Look, you can't appease gun owners, they always feel bitter and oppressed and fearful about the world. They don't really love freedom, they love guns and guns are the most important thing to them. Its no wonder these geniuses are also among the most religious people in the country."

Is this bait or do you really feel you can defend that position?

Gilbert Martin|9.24.08 @ 9:17AM|#

"I was thinking that or New Orleans. But I don't think in either case it was private security companies that took weapons. I think it was government agents both times."

Well even if it had been the private security companies, they would only be doing it at the direction of those who had hired them - which was the government. So it would be the fault of the particular level of government that initiated it in the first place - and it was not the feds that did it.

anon|9.24.08 @ 9:17AM|#

James - I'm an atheist, gay, gun-owning Democrat.

|9.24.08 @ 9:19AM|#

James | September 24, 2008, 9:09am | #

Look, you can't appease gun owners, they always feel bitter and oppressed and fearful about the world. They don't really love freedom, they love guns and guns are the most important thing to them. Its no wonder these geniuses are also among the most religious people in the country.

Well, I am agnostic. At least from time to time I am agnostic.

So am I representative of an insignificant minority of gun owners? Or is the above just the impression you get from watching tv?

Gilbert Martin|9.24.08 @ 9:19AM|#

It was not the feds that did it in New Orleans is what I meant.

Loupeznik|9.24.08 @ 9:21AM|#

And fro the record James, I'm Atheist.

|9.24.08 @ 9:27AM|#

We could get this thread over a hundred posts quick if all the athiest gun owners around here chimed in. And I don't recall a single Democrat complaining about New Orleans, but plenty of Republicans were rankled.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 9:29AM|#

Also, by yapping about what is or isn't necessary for hunting, Obama continues to demonsrate he doesn't understand what the Second Amendment is about.

It isn't about facilitating hunting.

You're absolutely right about that. It was a condition that Virginia and North Carolina made to enter the Union. You see, they were terrified of slave insurrections, and needed the guarantee of a state militia to defend them against those uppity blacks.

Hence all the modern confusion why gun ownership is partially conflated with militias in the Second Amendment.

But you go right on believing it had something to do with noble anti-authoritarian sentiment. It's so cute when you do.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ|9.24.08 @ 9:33AM|#

But you go right on believing it had something to do with noble anti-authoritarian sentiment.

Yeah, it's not like state militias fought in the revolution or anything.

robc|9.24.08 @ 9:41AM|#

Nevertheless, where does the 2nd Amendment rank on the issues people (all people, not just libertarians) care about? Is it even in the top 10?

There is a small subset of people, who otherwise have varying political views, for who it is the #1 issue and they will vote based on it.

Loupeznik|9.24.08 @ 9:44AM|#

The battles of Lexington and Concord were about slaves and not about confiscation of arms and ammunition?

Phillip Conti|9.24.08 @ 9:45AM|#

I have no problem with banning guns, but here in the democratic republic of new york it is illegal to own brass knuckles, knives, swords, tazers, it is illegal to "own" anything or do anything to defend yourself other than calling the police.

robc|9.24.08 @ 9:46AM|#

lmnop,

It was a condition that Virginia and North Carolina made to enter the Union.

So were the 1st and 3rd thru 10th amendments.

Are you saying those arent based on noble anti-authoritarian sentiments? Have you read the 3rd amendment?

Gilbert Martin|9.24.08 @ 9:46AM|#

"Hence all the modern confusion why gun ownership is partially conflated with militias in the Second Amendment."

Care to diagram the sentence that comprises the Second Amendment?

The clause containing the "militia" part is a dependent clause.

The independent clause is the one containing the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" phrase.

Nothing in an independent clause of a sentence is dependent on anything in a dependent clause. That's why it's called an independent clause in the first place.

Nice try though.

|9.24.08 @ 9:46AM|#

LMNOP has some sand in his vagina this morning, it seems. Why so serious, Batman?

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 9:47AM|#

Yeah, it's not like state militias fought in the revolution or anything.

It's great that you've opened up a sixth grade textbook, but seriously, when you actually look at the ratification debates, there was only one thing on Virginia's mind.

It wasn't the revolution.

I think it's fucking great that we have an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. I really do. I think it is unfortunate that it is bound up in stupid language about militias. Slavery is why.

I *hate* that people feel the need to elide over and/or lie about the history and original purpose of that amendment in order to artificially bolster some ridiculous original intent argument.

It reminds me of the absurd arguments about sociology of dietary restrictions in religion. Which is more likely: a priestly class, given to observing human behavior and human health due to their positions central to social life, realized that after eating pork people tended to get sick and die...or "the LORD spaketh and declared that bacon, while tasty and scrumptious, is unclean and shall not be partaken!"

The original reason for things is often irrelevant to why they are important today. Let us not get caught up in the original intent of folks whose societies and purposes are at direct odds with our modern condition and sensibilities. Take ideas and their value on their present merits.

robc|9.24.08 @ 9:52AM|#

lmnop,

Slave insurrection is only ONE of the original intents behind the 2A.

To deny the others because that one exists is actually sillier than what you are accusing others of.

Some wanted it for slave insurrections.
Some wanted it for protection against Indians.
Some wanted it in order to invade Canada 25 years later.
Some wanted it so the King of England couldnt come into their home and push them around.
Some wanted it because it was a basic right of man.

If you deny that any of those were part of the "original intent" of the 2A, you are an idiot.

The lmnop approach|9.24.08 @ 9:54AM|#

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

|9.24.08 @ 9:55AM|#

anon wrote:

James - I'm an atheist, gay, gun-owning Democrat.

Loupeznik wrote:

And fro the record James, I'm Atheist.

Stop it, you two! You're going to make James's tiny little black-and-white, us-vs-them brain explode with all that nuance! Clearly you two are guilty of a hate crime. Someone call joe.

(I'm also a gay, atheist RKBA-enthusiast. Take that, genius James!)

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 9:55AM|#

LMNOP has some sand in his vagina this morning, it seems. Why so serious, Batman?

Hmm? I'm not nearly as cranky as I was yesterday when I read about all the fools who like to bitch about politics and yet won't either vote or run for office. Vote for a third party. Vote straight anti-incumbent. Write in Mickey Mouse. Do something other than sit home, for chrissakes!

Today, however, I'm feeling kind of plucky and fresh. Slapping Gilbert Martin around is generally the start of a glorious day. I'm not serious; I'm grinning from ear to ear.

I have Hydrox cookies in my work drawer. Everything, compared to that, is trivial.

loupeznik|9.24.08 @ 9:59AM|#

Elemenope,

I'm with you on the principle of our generation having laws that pertain to and are intelligible to our generation (or three generations). I don't know why you would argue original intent if it isn't relevant to you. I also think you are on your own to think that the build up to the war and the war itself had no bearing on the bill of rights or any other founding document.

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:00AM|#

BTW, The Simpson's vignette quoted above was taken from real life, according to the DVD commentary. The wife of one of the writers (I think) was a European born history professor. That scene came from her citizenship exam, where she attempted to go in detail about the causes of the civil war.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 10:00AM|#

Slave insurrection is only ONE of the original intents behind the 2A.

To deny the others because that one exists is actually sillier than what you are accusing others of.

I was talking about Virginia and North Carolina's reasons. Without whom, I feel fairly confident saying, there would have been no United States.

'Tis true, if you wanted to add bagging Indians or invading Canada, I'll not quibble. My main point was that *very few* talked about it as a "basic right of Man" as you put it. It certainly wasn't the biggest or even a majority mover on the issue. These were (for the most part) pragmatic men looking for functional solutions. They were not, as I have belabored before, Libertarians.

The projection that goes on in their names sometimes is staggering.

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:02AM|#

Also, the Bill of Rights was the first "Contract with America". Madison, and other federalists, flip-flopped on the BoR in order to win election to the 1st House. Newt stole the idea from Madison (I actually dont know if Newt did or not, but knowing that Newt knows history, I just assume he did).

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:05AM|#

lmnop,

As the post that follows yours shows, Im well aware that the BoR was a pragmatic document. State constitutions written before the US one, quotes of founders, quotes from British Whigs all state that gun ownership is a basic right of man. Even if it wasnt the primary reason for inclusion, it was in play. It wasnt like they made that up later.

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:07AM|#

They were not, as I have belabored before, Libertarians.

Some of them were.

Of course, Im a big tent libertarian, so I may include more people than you would. Many of them, if transported to today and attempted to run as an LP candidate would have their libertarians creds criticized like Barr/Paul/etc have.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 10:09AM|#

I also think you are on your own to think that the build up to the war and the war itself had no bearing on the bill of rights or any other founding document.

See my response to robc. Also on that point, I think it is mightily simplistic to consider martial reasons as the prime or even major mover when considering that the same Constitution provided that there shall be no standing armies.

The Bill of Rights, generally, was undertaken to help mollify each reticent state from the perceived overbearance of the newly formed Federal government. To the extent that the rights of Man come into the discussion at all, it was in the context of a man against his *own* government, not that of then newly-defeated England.

For certain, the post psychology of the Revolution had a heavy influence on how people were to think towards government in general. However, even at that early point, the issue that tended to dominate the discussion and cause many compromises to be brokered was that of the continuity of slavery in the South. Even at the constitutional convention, not a few members predicted it would be that issue alone (and all the compromises that it entailed) that would eventually destroy the unity of the new nation.

They were very nearly right.

|9.24.08 @ 10:14AM|#

"You see, they were terrified of slave insurrections, and needed the guarantee of a state militia to defend them against those uppity blacks."

At least one man was seriously injured when an uppity black fella hit him in the head with a shovel.

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:16AM|#

lmnop

The projection that goes on in their names sometimes is staggering.

The projection that the FFs were conservatives of even modern liberals is even more staggering. With the exception of Hamilton, how many wanted a federal government of this size?

If you go back to the original constitutional debates, it seems the antifederalists were right in many, many ways.

|9.24.08 @ 10:16AM|#

If gun rights is your big issue - Obama is bad, but so is McCain - in 2004 and 2006, McCain received an 'F' rating by The Gun Owners America.

People need to cut the crap that there is any substantive difference between the two big party candidates.

If you really want to protect the second amendment, vote Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. A vote for John McCain or Barak Obama is a vote for gun control.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 10:17AM|#

As the post that follows yours shows, Im well aware that the BoR was a pragmatic document. State constitutions written before the US one, quotes of founders, quotes from British Whigs all state that gun ownership is a basic right of man. Even if it wasnt the primary reason for inclusion, it was in play. It wasnt like they made that up later.

I essentially agree with you that it was in play, but I tend to denigrate its role in comparison to the more grounded proximate reasons because of two things:

1. It was all the rage in that time to talk about everything under the sun that people might conceive of wanting to do as a "basic right of man"; rhetorical flourishes and grandstanding were very much the order of the day, and appeals to divine authority or other first principles were also quite the fashion.

2. The fact that Madison et al. flip-flopped faster than John Kerry in a pancake house on the issue of the Bill of Rights leads me to believe that their endorsement of such was *merely* a pragmatic concession so they could keep their jobs.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 10:22AM|#

The projection that the FFs were conservatives of even modern liberals is even more staggering. With the exception of Hamilton, how many wanted a federal government of this size?

If you go back to the original constitutional debates, it seems the antifederalists were right in many, many ways.

So agreed. I find that more than anything else, the founding fathers are today merely a convenient source for authority appeal arguments for whatever ideology the debater happens to subscribe.

The real founding fathers were wise men (for the most part) but of humanly limited vision both of the future and of the unintended consequences of their own compromises. One which is playing out here was their clunky language in the 2nd amendment, and all the various compromises and sides being appeased that went into crafting it.

All this, BTW, is why I neither trust nor subscribe to original intent as a coherent judicial philosophy.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ|9.24.08 @ 10:23AM|#

Elemenope ,

To the extent that the rights of Man come into the discussion at all, it was in the context of a man against his *own* government, not that of then newly-defeated England.

Exactly. "When in the course," not "this one day and never again."

But the whole revolution part is so overdrawn and, clearly, hypothetical. As said before, the article recounts Obama's abysmal record toward common self-defense on one's own property.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 10:26AM|#

James - I'm an atheist, gay, gun-owning Democrat.

Are most of the gun owners in your community atheists, or gay, or democrats?

Thought not.

*Being* the exception does not negate the rule. It just makes you more fun at debate tournaments.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 10:30AM|#

As said before, the article recounts Obama's abysmal record toward common self-defense on one's own property.

Yes it does. And I strongly dislike Obama's position on the issue. As I've said (a few times) before, if the dems were to give up their wet blanket obsession with gun control for good, the GOP would never win a national office again. Their idiotic reticence on the issue makes races that ought to not be competitive to be competitive.

But I doubt in the end that it will tank Obama, whose lead now on issues of the economy (!) makes McCain's position untenable.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ|9.24.08 @ 10:33AM|#

the GOP would never win a national office again

Yes, but sadly that just reflects the leftward trend. Who needs anarchy, which requires thinking about icky weapons, when you can skip straight to the socialism?

Works for Bolivia.

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:34AM|#

*Being* the exception does not negate the rule.

In a mathematical sense, it does.

|9.24.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Are most of the gun owners in your community atheists, or gay, or democrats?

I belong to an expensive private shooting club, and while we have our share of "typical" gun owners, you'd be surprised at the number of atypical ones. I'm sure that the expense has something to do with that, but still, there are a lot of gun owners out there who keep quiet.

|9.24.08 @ 10:36AM|#

F*ck you, White! I'm acting like a professional, you're acting like a first-time f*cking thief!

robc|9.24.08 @ 10:43AM|#

lmnop,

The fact that Madison et al. flip-flopped faster than John Kerry in a pancake house on the issue of the Bill of Rights leads me to believe that their endorsement of such was *merely* a pragmatic concession so they could keep their jobs.

In Madison's case this is absolutely true. Patrick Henry used his power to keep Madison from being elected to the first Senate and tried to get him beat by having his antifederalist protege James Monroe run against him. Monroe would have won without Madison's flip-flop. After the election, most of the other Federalists tried to back out of passing the BoR because they had strong majority, but Madison pushed it forward. He may have been a flip-flopper, but he was a man of his word.

Monroe, meanwhile, got elected to the Senate in 1790 (taking over after the death of the original Senator).

|9.24.08 @ 10:50AM|#

While it's possibly true that a majority of gun owners lean conservative, among the ones who I would describe as serious shooters, the vast majority of them are agnostic or atheist, often with backgrounds in highly technical fields.

When you're trying to chew out the center of a bullseye at 600 yards putting your faith in an imaginary character isn't going to help a whole lot.

|9.24.08 @ 10:55AM|#

Also, regarding the NRA and the gun confiscations in New Orleans, I suppose you could say that the NRA did "nothing" if by "nothing" you mean "filing a restraining order against the chief of police," "filing for a motion of contempt" when the chief of police ignored the restraining order, and then suing the shit out of the Mayor of New Orleans for failure to return confiscated firearms to their owners.

On top of that, I suppose more nothing would be the fact that Congress, the House, and the President signed into law the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006" which prohibits the confiscation of personal weapons from citizens in the wake of a disaster.

And of course there were also the NRA-backed versions of the same bill passed in more than one state.

I guess my point is that User Loser doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

rhywun|9.24.08 @ 11:01AM|#

There is a small subset of people, who otherwise have varying political views, for who it is the #1 issue and they will vote based on it.

You could say that about any issue.

I'm just devils-advocating, I suppose. It's one of those issues I don't care about, "until it happens to me". But you'd be surprised, or not, at the outcry in certain quarters when the notion of weakening gun laws is raised.

PS. What's with all the gay atheist gun-owners all of a sudden?!

|9.24.08 @ 11:04AM|#

What's with all the gay atheist gun-owners all of a sudden?!

Guns are pretty good deterrents of gay-bashing. Some drunk homophobe is looking for a beatdown, not a channel wound.

|9.24.08 @ 11:06AM|#

american fascism is coming...

- restrict and track citizens' travel (RealID- your papers please?)
- militarize and federalize local police
- seize control of the economic system (bailouts anyone?)
- slowly disarm the populous via increasingly restrictive gun control.

wa la before you know it we are living in hilter's germany or stalin's USSR, except we will pretend that the people control the government because they get to vote.

|9.24.08 @ 11:12AM|#

One thing is for sure. Should Obama get elected and have the Dems in control of Congress we can almost be assured to have a reinstatement of the Assault weapons ban.

This means forget about stocks and buy AR15s and AK's and LOTS of hi capacity mags for them. Last time the bill went into law the values of all these items went up 3-4+ times their actual original cost. 300-400% profit margin is pretty good and much safer bet then buying stocks. Then if you should need one for a unseen Revolution in the near future you will also already be setup to handle your business.

All this gun control BS cracks me up because both sides know they can not get rid of guns. Simply put, those with the guns will make the rules when all is said and done. The NRA is just a business these days preying on the publics fear that the government will come for their guns which in some cases is correct. But they know deep down inside that no matter what politicians do the gun owners in this country will never hand over their guns no matter what the "new" law says.

Elemenope|9.24.08 @ 11:15AM|#

Guns are pretty good deterrents of gay-bashing.

And rape. And homeless beatings. I'm a firm believer in the gun's ability to level pretty much any physical playing field in the normal course of human social life.

If the people using it are well-trained.

And the laws aren't retardedly against self-defense.

After the election, most of the other Federalists tried to back out of passing the BoR because they had strong majority, but Madison pushed it forward. He may have been a flip-flopper, but he was a man of his word.

And people wonder why I like Madison better than all the others. :)

kablammo|9.24.08 @ 11:18AM|#

"But they know deep down inside that no matter what politicians do the gun owners in this country will never hand over their guns no matter what the "new" law says."

Repeat after me:

Guns? What guns? I don't own any guns. I lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

shecky|9.24.08 @ 11:27AM|#

gay atheist gun-owners,/i>

Talk about a subset of a subset of a subset...

Down here on Earth, most folks realize the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere, and on the national level, the tide is turning in it's favor, if anything. Obama's reading of the situation is right, gun control is one of the fall back positions for bitter folks after everything else has been distilled away. The NRA's biggest concern is self preservation, not gun rights.

end!

|9.24.08 @ 11:41AM|#

suing the shit out of the Mayor of New Orleans

mediageek,

I don't know what kind of fantasy-land you live in, but this is simply impossible. I can assure you "Crazy" Ray Nagin is still, 100% full of shit.

|9.24.08 @ 11:44AM|#

Obama should promise all the gun-totting freaks nuclear ammunition - and everyone gets a free claymore! He should start wearing camouflage on the campaign trail and use the term 'commie bastards' much more often.

Andy|9.24.08 @ 11:58AM|#

No one is voting for Obama because they think he'll protect their guns. If guns are your biggest or only issue, third party is where it's at.

But in an election where both candidates are statist inareas, isn't there something to be said for the degree of statism? It seems a lot easier to roll back gun bans than environmental regulations, military interventions etc. Not that this gets Obama off the hook, just saying.

|9.24.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Elemenope wrote:

And rape.

So true. Guns are "the great equalizer" after all.

Pussy liberals (redundant, I know, but they so richly deserve it, don't they, joe?) think that everyone should be disarmed because guns are scary and thus turn themselves into fierce advocates for gay-bashing and male superiority over women, including rape. As a gay man and a feminist, I do take that personally.

Speaking of which, pussy liberals also oppose the criticizing of muslim men for forcing women to wear degrading clothing, some "multicultural" bullshit, or something, but it looks like plain old full-throated cock-sucking (of Islam) to me.

(See also: joe)

|9.24.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Buy your weapons now while you still can, assuming you can afford it.

Jiff
www.Privacy-Center.net

|9.24.08 @ 12:19PM|#

New Orleans Gun Confiscation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncq_Nu3dRSI

robc|9.24.08 @ 1:50PM|#

And people wonder why I like Madison better than all the others.

There is also this . I figure when Madison says what a phrase in the constitution means, I shoud listen, since he probably wrote it.

Back in the mid 90s, I got on a kick of reading bios of the FFs. Madison and Henry were my favorites.

robc|9.24.08 @ 1:52PM|#

use the term 'commie bastards' much more often.

If he started using the phrase "commie mutant traitors" in all his speeches, I would consider voting for him.

Paul|9.24.08 @ 1:54PM|#

I thought the latest rationale from Dems was that the constitution only applied to Federal Districts. That if you live in a state, you didn't get your unfettered rights.

|9.24.08 @ 2:23PM|#

I doubt there will be any gun bans soon because of the 2A. The taxes on them, however, will certainly rise--because the Constitution has nothing to say about taxing them until they are not affordable. It's much easier to levy more taxes on firearms than it is to ban them, so this is what I expect, no matter who ends up president--Republican or Democrat--for years to come. For those of you who believe in gun ownership, for whatever reason, buy firearms that have lifetime service warranties, and buy them as soon as you can without leaving yourself economically distressed. I'm not saying that this is an emergency; all I'm saying is that taxes on firearms hardly ever go down or become exempt, no matter who is in office.
By the way, hunting needs to be done for environmental reasons, so I don't see bans on most shotguns or rifles in the future. Do you know what happens to an ecosystem when deer overpopulate? Look it up. It isn't pretty. And would you rather a government use your tax money to pay hunters to reduce overpopulation or would you rather hunters volunteer to hunt and pay taxes to do the job? Which is more fiscally responsible?

Paul|9.24.08 @ 2:43PM|#

The taxes on them, however, will certainly rise--because the Constitution has nothing to say about taxing them until they are not affordable.

Nah, don't have to. We've already got the precedent that government actions which result in a de-facto ban are as good as an explicit ban. You can make it harder to own a firearm, but not impossible.

St. V|9.24.08 @ 3:04PM|#

Would I be considered a 2nd Amendment extremist if I told you that I support the ability to legally aquire a fully automatic weapon (and it's ammunition), even though I do not currently and never have owned a gun, and have never even so much as fired one?

I'm such a weirdo! I'm pretty though.

LarryA|9.24.08 @ 3:24PM|#

Gun owners tend towards the GOP for exactly the same reason that GLBT folks tend towards the Democrats.

Leaving the Pink Pistols caught in between, as more and more of us are.

then again, I am not going to vote for McCain either the 1st and 2nd A are both important to me.

You can use the Second Amendment to protect the First. The other way around doesn't work so well.

Andy|9.24.08 @ 3:34PM|#

"You can use the Second Amendment to protect the First. The other way around doesn't work so well."

Actually, I think arguing for the second amendment is exercising the first. But does anyone in here honestly think a gun (or ten) would protect you if the government wanted to punish your speech? I understand the sentiment, but trying to rank the Amendments is stupid. Can't we just agree that if (lol) any even start to fall, it's a huge threat?

|9.24.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Register another cosmo, atheist gun owner here. Don't be gettin any gay ideas, however. Seeing a set of hard pecs-n-abs does nothing for me, unless I'm looking in the mirror. :-)

Bummer that Obama sucks on the 2nd, but he's still the obvious choice.

"You can use the Second Amendment to protect the First. The other way around doesn't work so well."

I take it you don't believe that "the pen is mightier than the sword"?

kablammo|9.24.08 @ 3:56PM|#

"Would I be considered a 2nd Amendment extremist if I told you that I support the ability to legally aquire a fully automatic weapon (and it's ammunition), even though I do not currently and never have owned a gun, and have never even so much as fired one?"

Well I certainly wouldn't consider you an extremist, but then I've got a gun safe chock full of legal (NFA registered) machineguns & suppressors.

|9.24.08 @ 8:47PM|#

Nevertheless, where does the 2nd Amendment rank on the issues people (all people, not just libertarians) care about? Is it even in the top 10?

It's irrelevant where the 2nd anendment ranks on average with all voters across the nation. What matters, for purposes of the Electoral College, is how much it matters to undecided voters in swing states with lots of rural hunting areas and large numbers of hunters. If that swings 1% of the voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, etc., that could decide what is shaping up to be a very close presidential election.

economist|9.24.08 @ 9:54PM|#

"I take it you don't believe that 'the pen is mightier than the sword'?"
Nope. Try using a carefully constructed and logical argument to stop a bullet, a knife, a boot, or a fist.

perilisk|9.24.08 @ 10:44PM|#

Obama just opposes guns because he thinks that they dampen mainstream American ingenuity in favor of Big Business. His personal associations indicate that any violent uprising against the government or reprisal against individual evildoers should be waged using bombs.

|9.25.08 @ 8:29AM|#

Alan Vanneman sarcastically wrote:
"Yes, I also am sick and tired of watching my thirty-ought-six rounds bounce off those damn kevlar vests of the deer in Rock Creek Park! They think they are so damn smart! How I long for the sweet, sweet sound of copper-jacketed steel entering helpless, living flesh! I want armor-piercing bullets! I want armor-piercing bullets! I want armor-piercing bullets!"

That's just the point. _Ordinary_ .30-06 hunting rifle rounds (copper-jacketed lead) will indeed plow right though a cop's kevlar vest, through his body, and right out through the back of the vest on the other side. Kevlar has no magic anti-bullet properties, it is merely a very tough fabric, and if you have enough layers a (weak) conventional pistol bullet will be caught within the layers. A vest with enough kevlar layers to stop a hunting rifle bullet would be too stiff, heavy, and uncomfortable to wear. Legislation banning "any ammo that can penetrate a policeman's vest" will indeed outlaw virtually all conventional hunting ammo!

And yet, people like Obama _do_ consistently support such legislation knowing that the NRA must oppose it, solely for the opportunity to demonize the NRA as being anti-cop.

Either you, too, are trying to deceive readers, or the gun controllers' propaganda has made a fool of you. What I cannot understand, if it's the latter, is why you don't deeply resent them for having done this.

|9.25.08 @ 12:31PM|#

"Nope. Try using a carefully constructed and logical argument to stop a bullet, a knife..."

Try using a bullet to stop a groundswell of opinion that we should burn your house down.

"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." Napoleon Bonaparte

FYI, I support all the amendments. ;-)

economist|9.26.08 @ 4:09PM|#

I also support all the amendments (except the sixteenth, and whichever one made prohibition constitutional, or did you mean the Bill of Rights?).
"Try using a bullet to stop a groundswell of opinion that we should burn your house down"
Well, obviously one bullet wouldn't be enough, now would it. And I'd like to see that angry mob go up unarmed against military forces.
And, finally, Screw Bonaparte!

economist|9.26.08 @ 4:11PM|#

Tip of the hat to perilisk. However, unlike some of Mr. Obama's acquaintances, I am against random murder to "send a message".

|9.28.08 @ 3:23AM|#

Prez Obama is going to be too busy with Taliban Pakistan, a melted financial system, currency rushes and extracting ourselves from the idiot military adventure in Iraq to have time to get around to guns. He won't touch the issue after the first letter writing campaign. Relax.

Contextant|9.30.08 @ 12:57AM|#

Wasn't one of the 4 reasons for the 2A so minutemen could band together into militias and repel invasions, making a large standing army unnecessary?

In addition to self-defense, hunting, and taking down tyrannical govts?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements