The Audacity of Gun Control?

Gun historian Clayton Cramer, whose work helped to unmask Michael Bellesiles as a massive fraud, minces no words regarding Barack Obama's position toward gun rights:

He was here in Boise over the weekend for a rally, and emphasized that he is not trying to take anyone's guns. He's a liar. It isn't just that he supports bans on semiautomatics, and more possession and purchase restrictions. He claims that he wants more laws to keep guns out of the inner cities. Why? Does he think black people lack the sense that white people have?

He was a member of the board of the Joyce Foundation, the primary funder of extreme gun control measures in the United States. And he claims that he isn't trying to disarm Americans?

He's a liar, through and through.

More here.

This seems a bit arch to me, and I'm curious as to how Obama's positions match up with those of Clinton, McCain, and Romney. How much of a role will gun rights play in the election?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    A liar? And a racist, too?!?

    Through and through?

    Clayton Cramer needs to breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes.

  • ||

    Well, he is certainly a liar. Most politicians are, of course, as in trying to tell each audience what you think it wants to hear, you will inevitably need more flexibility than the truth will bear. Obama's just no different than anyone else when it comes to, erm, flexibility.

  • alisa||

    Compare Obama's position with Clinton's (on the same website, ontheissues.com.)

    Obama's no Second Amendment stalwart, of course. He wants to ban semi-automatics. But Clinton goes much further: she supports licensing all handguns, and approves the Brady Bill (waiting periods and background checks), in addition to supporting a ban on 19 kinds of assault weapons. Plus she gives the choice quote,
    "I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them."

  • Other Matt||

    A liar? And a racist, too?!?

    Actually, most people who are anti gun are racist at the core. Virtually all "gun control" measures in the USA are racist or culturalist at their roots (anti black, or anti irish). Anyone who has any brain and who has done any study whatsoever on the subject understands this, but it's not so big of a deal as it's so basic a fact it's down there with "2+2=4" to most of us.

    More concerning to me is the mentality of there are "good" people worthy of carrying firearms, simply becausae they're on the state's side, and the rest of us.

    Compare Obama's position with Clinton's

    At least Hillary is up front about it. Obama tries to say he's not what he is.

    Obama's just no different than anyone else when it comes to, erm, flexibility.

    Bullshit. He doesn't say anything up front, and he's charismatic. Very dangerous combination.


    I'll go read the article now, but wanted to comment on these.

  • Other Matt||

    Actually, most people who are anti gun are racist at the core

    Missed that it was joe I was responding to. Sorry, wasted bandwidth, he won't see it even if it bit his upper lip off.

  • Elemenope||

    Virtually all "gun control" measures in the USA are racist or culturalist at their roots (anti black, or anti irish).

    joe may have bit his upper lip off, but I still don't see it. Explain it, for people like me who are dense.

  • Other Matt||

    After reading the article, old news, I actually ref'd this earlier when I was pointing out to people how Obama is a hallmark card candidate, makes you feel good but nothing but useless platitudes.

    joe (little joe, no caps there), remember, only police should have guns, as they're so well trained and stable and the like compared to the rest of us. Especially those black rifles, obviously this is in left field, or perhaps right field for where I live, and the following quote, while true, is just counterproductive to the general collective:

    "As a specific example of the refutation, no rifle has been used to shoot and kill a Maryland police officer during 1/1/1980 through 12/31/2007, a period of 28 years and the claim by the VPC that an officer was killed in Maryland in 2000 by an assault weapon is a lie."

    Is it disingenuous for Lautenberg, et al, to try to use the VT shooting as a platform to regulate private sales on a national level? This, of course, requires that they lie, and distort the facts to somehow infer that 1) there is such a thing as an "unlicensed dealer", which is bullshit and already against the law, if you're a dealer, you're a dealer, but they really mean "seller", and 2) they ignore that Cho did not buy his weapons at a "gun show", or private sale, but by a licensed dealer with a background check properly done. I guess we can add Koreans to blacks and irish as people who aren't worthy to have firearms?

  • Other Matt||

    joe may have bit his upper lip off, but I still don't see it. Explain it, for people like me who are dense.

    No problem, glad you ask. Look here for a pretty good even handed discussion of it. The "inner city" vs "rural" stuff is, in reality, "inner city black poor people" vs "primarily white not inner city black poor people." That's today's version of making the distinction without having to mention race.

    Kenn Blanchard has a decent blog, if I recall addresses it, but I haven't read much lately so I'll let you form your own opinion.

  • Untermensch||

    Virtually all "gun control" measures in the USA are racist or culturalist at their roots (anti black, or anti irish).



    Historically this may be true, but most people now in favor of gun control measures see them as an anti-crime measure. The fact that blacks bear the brunt of them is, for most proponents in the population, epiphenomenal. I won't speak to the politicians who use gun control and racialist fears to pander to some segments, but your average soccer mom who supports gun control does so out of fear of crime. The association of crime with blacks and hispanics in her mind isn't the root cause for the fear of crime though. She'd be just as opposed to a white thug with a gun as a black one, a hispanic one, or a Korean...

  • Kap||

    Explain it, for people like me who are dense.



    The first gun control laws in the US were enacted in the immediate antebellum- and post-reconstruction south, and were intended to keep the freed slaves unarmed. Many of the gun laws were as explicit as "no negro shall own a gun" and suchlike.

    See e.g. Dred Scott (from Wikipedia):


    Perhaps the first political battle over the right to firearms involved the rights of slaves to join militia and to carry firearms in the United States, ultimately resulting in political battles, and ultimately civil war, in the aftermath of the 1856 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford which denied Negro's the full rights of citizenship:[28] "... (Mr. Scott's petition) would give to persons of the negro race, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.".



    Even modern laws such as the "Saturday Night Special" laws (minimum retail prices for guns) are advertised as keeping guns out of the "wrong hands", i.e. poor black people. And Obama saying to a rural sportsman crowd, "dont' worry, I'm only after 'inner city' guns" is pretty damn racist if you read between the lines.

  • Other Matt||

    The "inner city" vs "rural" stuff

    Apologies to those who didn't recognize the above as a reference to Obama's wife's ignorant comment.

    Where's Mediageek when you need 'em?

  • Other Matt||

    Historically this may be true, but most people now in favor of gun control measures see them as an anti-crime measure.

    If I do a wonderful job of selling you a pile of freeze dried cow manure as a dinner delicacy, does that make it any more nutritious and enjoyable to eat?

    They see it as an anti crime measure as a symbol. To get "guns off the street" implies somehow that if guns were gone, there would be no violence. This is not borne out by experience. Therefore, I would submit to you that they favor "gun control" as a symbol for "violence control". While I heartily agree with the latter, the former is much more dangerous, and based on lies, deciet, and racism.

  • Other Matt||

    U-whatever:
    but your average soccer mom who supports gun control does so out of fear of crime.

    Let me ask this. When the an "average soccer mom" pictures the gun slinging criminal, what do they look like, and where did they get the aforementioned firearm to sling?

  • Episiarch||

    I'm sure Obama wants to keep guns in the hands of his bodyguards. But the rest of us can go defenseless; after all, we're little people.

    Also: I wonder if Obama had a permit to carry a handgun in Chicago? And if he didn't, I wonder how much trouble he would have had getting one?

  • Other Matt||

    I'm sure Obama wants to keep guns in the hands of his bodyguards. But the rest of us can go defenseless; after all, we're little people.

    Or, in other words, here in Merry Land, we don't have "apprehended danger" and Obama does. I have friend who's blog is here, who was actually, no kidding, was told by the State Police that because he was a neighborhood activist trying to clean up his area of Baltimore, the death threats against him were of his own doing and he was bringing them upon himself. Crazy. They said he was bringing it upon himself because he was willing to testify to witnessing a shooter in the act in his back yard. So, in the center of "stop snitching" culture, there is a guy who wants to improve things, but Maryland's position is that he's not to be armed because he shouldn't try to improve things.

    But, hey, we can all just feel good about "change", right? Don't look at the substance, or lack thereof, just "change."

    I don't know, I kind of like to know what's going to change and in what direction before I vote for "change", myself, but y'all who just love Obama keep buying at the Hallmark store I guess.

  • FreedomDemocrat||

    Let's not forget a key gun vote in recent years. Senator Hillary Clinton was one of only 16 Senators to vote against a bill to ban the type of illegal, unconstitutional, and tyrannical confiscation of guns that occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

    There's no question that Clinton is in a league of her own in opposing the 2nd Amendment.

    In the general, if it is Clinton versus McCain, watch out. McCain's "maverick" style can appeal to all those suburban voters by reassuring them he's for good government (no earmarks and campaign finance), a cleaner environment (he believes in global warming) and competence in foreign policy (just don't pay attention to how long he wants to stay in Iraq). Clinton will have to get Mark Penn to drag out the old playbook and run an election on V Chips, school uniforms, gun control, and censorship of violent video games and music.

  • Untermensch||

    Let me ask this. When the an "average soccer mom" pictures the gun slinging criminal, what do they look like, and where did they get the aforementioned firearm to sling?



    I agree with you entirely, but I submit that to call them racist for having that image and to suppose that they want to reduce violence because they are racists, which is one plausible way to read this thread if you are in support of gun control, does more harm than good in talking to them. Sort of like calling someone a Nazi: at that moment you have shut off the possibility of them listening to you. If you asked the soccer mom if she's racist, she'd tell you know. Turning around and saying "yes you are. You support gun control because you don't like blacks" will just tell her to tune you out. (Never mind that the argument is not about overt, conscious racism: it's a distinction that is too subtle given the way "racist" is perceived.)

    Let me put it another way. I'm from Alaska and when I'm out in the woods I carry a gun because of the real possibility of being charged by a moose or a bear. Does that make me anti-moose or anti-bear, just because I happen to be really scared that an animal might charge me (I'd be scared of anything that might do that to me, whatever it might be)? Just because, for the soccer mom, most of the people she would be scared of happen to be "not white" doesn't mean she's scared of them because they are not white.

    For what it's worth, I agree with all of this about racist motives and so forth and I'm entirely in favor of dismantling the stupid gun control regime we have, but I'm afraid that 2nd-amendment advocates who use the language of racism to a crowd that doesn't consider itself racist do more harm than good. Bringing racism into a discussion with the people who support gun control-people who are certain that they are acting from the purest of motives (for the children, protecting women), even if what the propose does none of what the suppose-will only convince them that you aren't worth talking to.

    But if you can the language of "racism" and instead talk about it in terms of the disproportionate effects on minorities, you are talking about it in terms that "progressives" understand and that aren't rhetorically calling them the equivalent of Nazis.

  • Other Matt||

    There's no question that Clinton is in a league of her own in opposing the 2nd Amendment.

    No disagreement, my problem is that Obama has been getting a pass on this, as well as about every other issue of substance. Hillary is a known quantity, and no great friend of gun owners, though I believe somewhat more of a pragmatist if it increases her personal power. People here seem so in love with Obama without understanding his elitist underpinnings, and I'm glad Gillespie had the Audacity of Pointing Out that Obama ain't all people believe he is.

  • Fluffy||

    The fact that blacks bear the brunt of them is, for most proponents in the population, epiphenomenal.

    You know what? This is BS.

    The symbolism of the criminal with an "illegal" gun is incredibly racially charged.

    your average soccer mom who supports gun control does so out of fear of crime. The association of crime with blacks and hispanics in her mind isn't the root cause for the fear of crime though.

    That's absolutely not true.

    Every politician who talks about gun control is running a rhetorical Willie Horton ad. It's just OK to do that if you're a Democrat. If the parties switched gun control positions, you can be absolutely sure that the Republican position would be portrayed in the progressive blogosphere as being fundamentally Atwateresque.

  • ||

    Yeah, Obama is such a racist. I mean, anyone who thinks banning guns in the inner cities might be a pragmatic solution to urban crime (or at the very least a worthwhile experiment) is not only a racist and a liar but probably also a closet Nazi too. I mean, the Nazis HATED guns.

    And he's such a hypocrite for keeping armed bodyguards around him while wanting to disarm us little people and leave our suburbs defenseless against the onslaught of murderers and rapists that will surely be unleashed if we banned guns in the inner cities. Gun control enthusiasts are racists. I'm not a racist, but I am scared of the people who might kill me if I didn't have a gun. Obama is a racist. I am not a racist.

    Most gun-haters are motivated solely by fear of crime. Gun-lovers are not by a fear of crime. I'm just worried that if guns were taken away I'd be vulnerable to crime. I am not afraid of crime. Everyone else is a pansy and a racist. No one's getting my guns, that's for sure.

    I mean, I've actually had to shoot people before. I get a lot of attempted murders out here in the Houston suburbs, and I've had to off not a few potential killers. Happens all the time.

  • ||

    Other Matt,

    You're so right! Anti-gun politicians (DEMS especially) might as well put on Klan kostumes LOL!

    I like the politicians that will defend my constitutional right to bear arms; God knows I'll need those arms against all the illegals and sexual predators out there LOL!

  • Rhywun||

    How much of a role with gun rights play in the election?

    Same as always: zero. And rightfully so, IMHO. The economy plays a bigger role in crime.

  • Other Matt||

    Does that make me anti-moose or anti-bear, just because I happen to be really scared that an animal might charge me

    No, but if you were anti-moose and didn't worry about Moutain lion because they were such a cute tan color, you'd be an idiot at best.

    But if you can the language of "racism" and instead talk about it in terms of the disproportionate effects on minorities, you are talking about it in terms that "progressives" understand and that aren't rhetorically calling them the equivalent of Nazis.

    I hear what you're saying, and I don't discount it. The problem is, there is a faction which has done a good job of portraying gun owners as backwoods hicks nobody wants to be associated with, at the same time as urban gang bangers. It's a very good study on how to sell an unpalatable idea to a crowd.

    Remember, I didn't bring up racism so much as respond to joe's original questioning of it, btw.

    Perhaps you might also consider that sally housewife, who I guess we're talking about here, certainly does not want to be a racist, even though they have in their mind a blatently racist, or socially elitest, scenario when picturing what they want to "control" in regards to guns. If we can successfully make the truthful association stick of racism and gun control, the democrat party might drop their all out assault, and it will cease to be an issue.

  • Fluffy||

    Fuck you, Joe.

  • ||

    Barack on guns. Not pretty:

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/#gun-control

  • ||

    Barack gun link


    sorry for the double post

  • Other Matt||

    I mean, I've actually had to shoot people before. I get a lot of attempted murders out here in the Houston suburbs, and I've had to off not a few potential killers. Happens all the time.

    Obviously, you're a fuckwit idiot. Why don't you read some of the links I've posted, and give me something of substance refuting them? If not, go buy a T Shirt from CafePress saying "I'm a fuckwit can't think idiot" and put it on with pride.

    Same as always: zero. And rightfully so, IMHO. The economy plays a bigger role in crime.


    Rhywun-I agree that economics has more to do with crime, and culture, however... More than any other issue, firearms people are single issue voters. Yes, more than abortion people. So, if it's close, it's more about lost votes than anything, most gun owners will vote against a "gun control" candidate simply because of that one stance. I don't know what posesses the Dems to not realize this, but perhaps it's the old "you can't cure stupid".

  • Other Matt||

    Mediageek-You have a rough super bowl party or something? I can't believe we haven't seen a post yet from you.

  • Fluffy||

    Most gun-haters are motivated solely by fear of crime.

    This is true. Name another motivation other than this.

    Gun-lovers are not by a fear of crime.

    I don't own a gun. The only reason I would ever buy a gun is political - I want our political leadership at all levels of government to understand, at some level of their consciousness, that if I get angry enough I might shoot some of them. So I'm not a gun lover because of fear of crime AT ALL.

    You need to do better parody trolling.

  • ||

    I'm sure Obama wants to keep guns in the hands of his bodyguards. But the rest of us can go defenseless; after all, we're little people.

    With that position, I'm sure he'll earn the endorsement of Rosie O Donkey.

  • ||

    Missed that it was joe I was responding to. Sorry, wasted bandwidth, he won't see it even if it bit his upper lip off.

    No, Matt, I just laughed at you.

    I guess they're those "liberal fascists" again.

    Racist to the core!!!!11!!eleven!! Grow up.

  • ||

    You DID NOT just link to Clayton Cramer. My god. How low will you go?

  • Episiarch||

    God knows I'll need those arms against all the illegals governments and sexual predators politicians out there LOL!

    Fixed for comedy value.

  • ||

    You people are fucking hilarious!

    I guess we can add Koreans to blacks and irish as people who aren't worthy to have firearms?

    Every politician who talks about gun control is running a rhetorical Willie Horton ad. Every one! EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!

    Fuck you, Joe. My, so emotional. That must explain the level-headed thinking that so characterized your commentary.

    And then Matt gets into the act, too.

    Paper bags, people. Slow, easy breaths.

  • Episiarch||

    joe is cranky because the Pats choked like George Bush on a pretzel.

  • ||

    David Kopel covers the classist and anti-immigrant tendencies of UK gun control over the past century or so in "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy". I see on Amazon that he's written another book "Gun Control in Great Britain: Saving Lives or Constricting Liberties?" that probably expands that analysis.

    I've seen a number of anecdotal quotes from state legislators discussing gun control bills who considered them critical to keep guns out of the hands of blacks specifically. Sorry, I don't have a reference handy.

  • ||

    Arch? I don't get that at all. He sounds foaming at the mouth furious.

  • ||

    No, joe is tickled the silliness on display on this thread. It's actually elevating my cranky mood.

  • Other Matt||

    You people are fucking hilarious!

    I'm glad you're entertained, joe.

    Fuck you, Joe. My, so emotional. That must explain the level-headed thinking that so characterized your commentary.

    I never said that, and I wouldn't as you didn't deserve it, but it's not mine to apologize for. I said you wouldn't see it if it bit your upper lip off. That's because you don't want to. Fine, it's your call.

    And then Matt gets into the act, too.

    What do you mean by this? The troll? He/she's a fucking idiot who can't come up with rational discussion, so they resort to bullshit and deserve to be called a fuckwit. They deserve it, your comment wasn't deserving of it.

    I kind of expected more from you, though, in terms of substantive disagreement though.

    No, joe is tickled the silliness on display on this thread.

    Define what you believe to be silly, please.

  • ||

    None of the people calling Barack Obama a racist would spend ten minuted in the neighborhoods he spent years of his life working as an organizer.

    Race cards really only work if you actually give a shit about racism. If you don't and you try to play one anyway, it's really, really obvious.

  • ||

    Historically this may be true, but most people now in favor of gun control measures see them as an anti-crime measure.

    That was also true back in the day when people were up-front about their racism.

    Most gun-haters are motivated solely by fear of crime.

    This is true. Name another motivation other than this.


    They have an irrational fear of weapons. Why else are they trying to ban/"control" weapons that are not used to commit crimes ("assault" rifles, .50 BMG rifles, etc.)?

    You DID NOT just link to Clayton Cramer. My god. How low will you go?

    Damn you for linking to someone who actually won, on scholarly grounds, the biggest public controversy over gun control in recent memory! Damn you to hell!

  • ||

    joe, what do you think of jim rice's HOF qualifications?

    weigh in at the blog of the URKOBOLD.

    http://urkobold.blogspot.com/2008/02/hof-buz.html

    also, isn't clayton cramer the guy who has a completely deranged view of gay people? seems to me i can remember him concern-trolling volokh over, and over, and over...

  • ||

    Matt,

    The implausible stretches by the "gun nuts" to play the race card on Barack Obama are sillier than hell.

  • Episiarch||

    It's totally unnecessary to play racism games with Obama. He's an elitist fuckwad politician (which makes him normal) who will make sure he has bodyguards and pistol permits while taking them away from regular people.

  • Untermensch||

    Fluffy, I'm going to guess that you leave most arguments thinking you've won while you're opponents just leave scratching their heads and wondering why the hell they bothered talking to you...

    The fact that blacks bear the brunt of them is, for most proponents in the population, epiphenomenal.

    You know what? This is BS.



    So the only reason why they fear guns is because they are racist? Somehow I just don't buy it... I don't deny there is a racial component at all, but the soccer mom would want to have guns out of the hands of skinhead gangs or white thugs just as much as blacks. If most of the "criminals" she sees are black (for whatever reason), then the association is epiphenomenal. She doesn't fear guns in the hands of blacks because they are black. She fears guns in the hands of criminals, most of whom (rightly or wrongly) she sees as minorities. That doesn't mean that she wants to control guns to control minorities at all, even if the effect is disproportionately on them.

    The symbolism of the criminal with an "illegal" gun is incredibly racially charged.



    Did I say it wasn't? But the racial charge may not be the only, or even primary, motivator, but rather an effect of the experience people have.

    your average soccer mom who supports gun control does so out of fear of crime. The association of crime with blacks and hispanics in her mind isn't the root cause for the fear of crime though.



    That's absolutely not true.



    How do you know that this is "absolutely not true"? I fear being murdered (as an abstract, not because of any real threats to my life), but that fear has nothing to do with who might do it. The root cause is that I don't want to be murdered. You're going to have an uphill battle arguing that people fear crime because it is associate with minorities rather than because it's damned unpleasant.

    Every politician who talks about gun control is running a rhetorical Willie Horton ad. It's just OK to do that if you're a Democrat. If the parties switched gun control positions, you can be absolutely sure that the Republican position would be portrayed in the progressive blogosphere as being fundamentally Atwateresque.



    Actually, I see plenty of politicians who don't mention a racial angle and just say thing about wanting to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I disagree with their policies, and I agree that there is a racial component, but not everyone out there who wants to ban guns or keep them away from "criminals" is doing it because they are racists. Some of them are looking at the very real effects of crime in their communities and coming to the wrong solution about how to prevent it. But that doesn't ipso facto make them racists.

    I hate to say it fluffy, but your arguments show that sometimes your friend is your worst enemy. If you got to debate a gun control proponent in a public arena and spouted off about the gun control buy being a racist and everyone who supports gun control being a racist, you would do more harm to your cause than good. I'm sorry to say it, because I agree with your goals, but that's the way I see it.

  • ||

    Jim Rice was the most dominant hitter of era. Judged against his contemporaries - which is the corrrect standard for judging any ballplayer - it's obvious he belongs in the Hall.

    Plus, he had the tightest, most disciplined, efficient swing I've ever seen.

  • Other Matt||

    None of the people calling Barack Obama a racist would spend ten minuted in the neighborhoods he spent years of his life working as an organizer.

    You presume a lot, joe.

    Race cards really only work if you actually give a shit about racism. If you don't and you try to play one anyway, it's really, really obvious.

    Again, you presume a lot. Why do you think I don't give a shit about racism? Do you know any small detail whatsoever of my background, or do you just consider yourself all knowing and able to infer my life history from some comments on an internet blog?

    The implausible stretches by the "gun nuts" to play the race card on Barack Obama are sillier than hell.

    I think you're showing your ass here. What I said was his position on gun control was racist, I've given you a number of justifications as to why gun control is inherent racist or elitist, and all you can come up with is "silly" as a dismissive. Give me some kind of fact, position, anything at all that isn't grounded in racism or totalitarianism when it comes to firearms. You can't, it's been tried, it all traces back to one of the above. I don't see it as "silly" to point that out, why do you?

  • ||

    Episiarch,

    Barack Obama wants to take pistol permits away from people who have them?

    Really?

    Any evidence of that? Or are you just assuming he gotta, because of his other positions?

  • ||

    joe. comment at the urkobold blog. not here. i can't have this discussion amid a bunch of gun talk.

    read the entry, etc.

  • Jennifer||

    I won't say those who support gun control are racist. I will, however, say that they think it should be illegal for small-sized women like me to have an effective means of self-defense. No gun for me; I can only be as safe as the most evil man in my presense is willing to allow.

  • Other Matt||

    So the only reason why they fear guns is because they are racist?

    Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of independent action. The "fear" is the person behind the gun, most of the time people fear their own potential reactions. To say that the "inner city" is the place to restrict guns is code for "black people", despite joe's protest to the contrary. It's really that simple.

  • Other Matt||

    Barack Obama wants to take pistol permits away from people who have them?

    Really?


    Ok, now you're really showing your ass. He is on the record of wanting to make semi automatic firearms illegal. So, you can have a permit but the firearm is illegal? That's not a stretch? Who's being "silly" now?

  • ||

    ....You presume a lot, joe.

    Ohooes! The guy who can what you think about black people purely from your position on gun control thinks I presume too much!!! I'll get right to work on that.

    Why do you think I don't give a shit about racism? Because I've seen you write on a number of threads about a number of issues, many of which actually do have something to do with racism, and you don't ever have anything to say about actual racism or its effects. But when you can throw the word "racist" at people in a political argument that has nothing to with race, boy are you all over it.

    What I said was his position on gun control was racist Actually, no, what you said was Actually, most people who are anti gun are racist at the core in response to a blog post about Barack Obama's positions on gun control.

    Silly, stupid, vapid, transparent race card.

  • ||

    I have helped keep Wikipedia up to date and it is fairly accurate:
    Political positions of Barack Obama:Gun control


    As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.[82] He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.[83] He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home.[84] Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1.[85] Illinois allows lawmakers to abstain from issues by voting present instead of yes or no.

    Obama was also a board member[86] of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.

    He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[87] While in the US Senate, Obama has voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability.[88]. Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.[89]

    He is rated F by the National Rifle Association.[90] The NRA describes the recipient of its F grade as a "true enemy of gun owners' rights."[91]


    See the Wikipedia article if you want the citations.

    Barack Obama has been anti-gun all his life. He is now trying to gloss it over. Eventually, the truth comes out.

  • Jennifer||

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support the right of rapists to attack* willy-nilly, free of the fear that their next intended victim might have the wherewithal to blow his balls off.
    .
    .
    .
    *Except, of course, they won't be able to attack big, important people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, because their bodyguards have guns. It's the little people like me who can't be trusted with the right to self-defense.

  • ||

    He is on the record of wanting to make semi automatic firearms illegal.

    No, he is on the record wanting to make semi-automatic RIFLES illegal.

    So, your answer is "Choice B: I'm just assuming because of his position on other issues."

  • ||

    joe. stay on topic here.

    jim rice wasn't as dominant as mike schmidt or reggie jackson. he arguably wasn't as dominant as dwight evans.

  • LarryA||

    Virtually all "gun control" measures in the USA are racist or culturalist at their roots (anti black, or anti irish).
    joe may have bit his upper lip off, but I still don't see it. Explain it, for people like me who are dense.


    For an example, look at the New York City licensing scheme. "Anyone" can get a license to own a firearm or to carry one (or to carry pepper spray, it's the same process) provided the authorities in NYC think they "need" to have the license.

    It turns out that only wealthy people who are politically connected, almost all white, and almost all male "need" a license. I.e. publishers of anti-gun newspapers "need" licenses to carry, Nigerian cab drivers do not.

    Similar results obtain nationwide if you look at other "discretionary" gun licensing schemes.

    If any other government process produced the obviously discriminatory results of discretionary gun licensing the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, AARP, NOW, and every other rights group would bury it in lawsuits. But apparently it's okay to discriminate in the service of gun control.

    As for soccer moms, I'm seeing more and more of them in my concealed handgun licensing classes.

    How much of a role with gun rights play in the election?
    Same as always: zero. And rightfully so, IMHO. The economy plays a bigger role in crime.


    Gun control plays a major role in crime. Given a choice between another gun control law and doing something effective politicians will choose gun control.

    Still, gun issues will play a minimal role in the election because the Democrats and the national media are pro-control and they know it's a loser issue. Republicans won't press the issue because the leading candidates aren't that pro-gun either.

    In related news: The Brady Center just published this year's issue of their gun control scorecard. Once again the states with their "A" gun control ratings have more crime than their "D" and "F" states.

  • ||

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support the right of rapists to attack* willy-nilly...

  • Episiarch||

    joe, I was being rhetorical, but considering he wants to stop guns in "inner cities", I would think his plan would include restricting possession.

  • ||

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

    Objectively-pro-rapist, they are.

  • Jennifer||

    If I'm attacked I'll just close my eyes and think, "Obama says I'm safer this way." Oooh, yeah, I can just feel that hot, white safety dripping off my face. Mmmmm, that's good freedom.

  • alisa||

    Okay. Concerns about urban violence are not racist; they're realist. I live in Chicago, which has one of the country's highest homicide rates (and incidentally some of its strictest gun laws.) Just about every week I see in the paper that some kid or teenager was caught in crossfire near where I live. Most of the victims are black. Chicago is really two cities: the South Side does not have the kind of schools, infrastructure, or police protection available to the North Side (which is almost entirely white.)

    Let's keep a little perspective. I don't think gun control is a solution either; but it doesn't make sense to minimize the real harm caused by city violence.

  • Episiarch||

    Don't be silly, Jennifer, you probably would be unconscious or dead and won't be thinking that at all.

  • Other Matt||

    No, he is on the record wanting to make semi-automatic RIFLES illegal.

    "Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
    Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

    Weapons=rifles?

    Silly, stupid, vapid, transparent race card.

    Ok, I was wrong, you are pretty much a presumptive fuckwit.

    Because I've seen you write on a number of threads about a number of issues, many of which actually do have something to do with racism, and you don't ever have anything to say about actual racism or its effects.

    So, lack of comment means whatever you want to infer? For the record, I abhor racism and it's continuing effects. I abhor people who propegate racist beliefs, and I don't give a shit what color they are. I confront it actively wherever I find it. I don't believe "affirmative action" as it's currently being implemented, at least in regards to set aside contracts, education, etc, work as intended. I think people vote for this crap because they haven't seen it in action, which I have.

    The racism which is inherent within the "white" community is one of acceptance, meaning, we can pretend that the "inner city" is the place where things need to be "controlled", and delude ourselves into thinking that it's not racist to think so. That's bullshit. The racism which is inherent within the "black" community is one where there's some greater sense of victim entitlement based on history. History has not been kind in a lot of ways, but continuing victimhood does nobody any good, where we convince ourselves that because we're black, we need the government to handle things for us. I believe people show themselves to be honorable, or not. People are worthy of respect, and respect others, or not. I don't give a rats ass what color they are, it's how they carry themselves and treat others which is important.

    That good enough for you joe?

    What a presumptive prick you are. I thought you were someone who held some different beliefs but were willing to discuss. I guess I was wrong.

    I live in Chicago, which has one of the country's highest homicide rates (and incidentally some of its strictest gun laws.)

    Hey, amazing how that seems to hold true, isn't it?

  • Mark||

    The key question here is:
    "How much of a role will gun rights play in the election?"

    The answer: not much, nor should they. Violent crime in this country is extremely low right now compared with the 80's and early 90's. The so-called "assault weapons" ban has been expired for well over 3 years and (shockingly!) there has been no sudden surge of people being bayoneted to death with scary looking rifles.

    Meanwhile, the economy is going to shit, we're spending hundreds of billions on a war of choice, health care costs have gone through the roof (because our current system has so many market distortions), and we're fighting a massive GWOT in which the executive branch has decided the Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome rather than a road map to success. I could go on...

    Right now, gun control is probably not on the top 100 list of things to do for the next President. Even if it were, it's worth remembering that any such legislation would need to get through two houses of Congress. Gun control is also a wedge issue that requires a lot of political capital to force through; with so many higher priorities, an incoming President isn't going to be able to waste that capital on gun control. The cost of that capital will be even higher if the SCOTUS rules that gun ownership is an individual right, and only slightly less in the event SCOTUS finds only a collective right.

    While I can see candidates discussing gun control on the campaign trail, and the eventual winner even mentioning it in their initial address to Congress, I have a hard time seeing any of them actually spending political capital to force significant gun control through before the 2012 elections.

  • Jennifer||

    In all seriousness, if a Communist ran for president, he'd go on the record as saying "I want to eradicate poverty and make it so nobody ever goes hungry again." He's probably sincere about that, too. Goody for him. Nonetheless, since I know damned well what happens when Communists come into power, I'll still say "Candidate Guevara supports turning this country into an oppressive third-world hellhole."

    And then Joe can make insightful comments like "Zzzzzzz," because apparently politicians are supposed to be judged by their stated intentions, not their real-world results.

  • ||

    Doesn't this racism business cut both ways? I mean, a lot of people who own guns (not all, not a majority, I'm sure, but undeniably SOME) have irrational paranoid fantasies about the dangers of the World Out There, and the World Out There for gun-supporters is typically swarthy young men from the dangerous Inner City (as per Jennifer's rape fears).

    The facts are that most gun crime occurs in the inner city, most of it is black-on-black, and quite a lot of it goes unreported. Gun control isn't the Ultimate Solution, but it seems foolish to deny the fact that the people who have to worry about getting shot are mostly urban blacks and the people most likely to rant and rave against ANY local gun control measures are, well, not urban blacks.

  • Rhywun||

    More than any other issue, firearms people are single issue voters.

    Perhaps. I can't claim to understand why an issue that has such a minimal impact on the vast majority of people is so important to that group. Then again, I didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon either :)

  • Episiarch||

    Rhywun, if people were constantly agitating to ban a hobby that you really enjoyed or prevent you from protecting yourself if you felt threatened, you might get upset too.

  • Jennifer||

    I mean, a lot of people who own guns (not all, not a majority, I'm sure, but undeniably SOME) have irrational paranoid fantasies about the dangers of the World Out There, and the World Out There for gun-supporters is typically swarthy young men from the dangerous Inner City (as per Jennifer's rape fears).

    Ah, so my fears are irrational? I'm guessing you're not familiar with the neighborhoods in which I live and work.

  • ||

    When the politicians and the liberal (progressive?) elite (Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Sam Donaldson et al), start refusing weapons for themselves and their bodyguards, come lecture people who live with a realistic fear of an armed home invasion. Talk to Janet in Flint, walking home after closing up the bar at 2:00 AM, about how she'll be safer without a gun.

    Hey, I'm willing to compromise on firearm restrictions. Feel free to deny firearms to convicted felons who are on probation or parole. I'll agrre to that. After they do their time though (paid their debt to society, as it were), they should be CCW approved just as you or I should be.

    Whatever happened to the Dodge city scenario that was going to play out in Florida with CCW liberalization anyway? Must have been lots of folks gunning down each other over fender benders and parking spaces. Otherwise people would have come forward and admit they were spouting hysterical nonsense. That didn't happen, so I guess the shooting deaths in Florida have skyrocketed. Are there any Sunshine Staters here to confirm that?

    By and large, I trust my fellow citizens to own and carry firearms up to semi-auto. I wish that more did.

  • Jennifer||

    Talk to Janet in Flint, walking home after closing up the bar at 2:00 AM, about how she'll be safer without a gun.

    No, she needs to talk to Mortimer Peacock about her irrational paranoid fantasies. Nobody's going to want to hurt her, because mean people are as mythical as unicorns.

  • ||

    ::::I'm guessing you're not familiar with the neighborhoods in which I live and work.::::

    Well, no, obviously not. I don't dispute your right to defend yourself; I just wonder how often man-jumps-out-of-an-alley rapes occur in the neighborhoods where you live and work. Most rapists are actually someone the victim knows slightly.

    I probably shouldn't have said that such fears were irrational; your fears about rape are no more irrational than the fears people who live in the city have about getting shot.

  • LarryA||

    Perhaps. I can't claim to understand why an issue that has such a minimal impact on the vast majority of people is so important to that group.

    Because it's a touchstone. Politicians who don't trust citizens with firearms don't trust them with much else, either. The last thing the nanny state wants is uppity peons who can effectively challenge its rule.

  • Episiarch||

    Jennifer, do you have a CT carry permit? If you're working in Hartford, you should.

  • Other Matt||

    And then Joe can make insightful comments like "Zzzzzzz," because apparently politicians are supposed to be judged by their stated intentions, not their real-world results.

    Or, perhaps, joe (you capped the J, he's little insignificant "joe" dontcha know) just doesn't have enough brainpower to come up with comment of substance, or has no foundation, so he basically resorts to third grade level taunts.

    Gun control isn't the Ultimate Solution, but it seems foolish to deny the fact that the people who have to worry about getting shot are mostly urban blacks and the people most likely to rant and rave against ANY local gun control measures are, well, not urban blacks.

    MP-I would disagree with some of this. I agree that people who have to worry are typically urban blacks, with the caveat that a fair number of women are in that group also due to domestic violence. I disagree about the gun control comments. What you see are the Brady crowd, and the "leaders" of the black community who are staking out a feel good anti violence stand.

    The problem is that it doesn't work, and that it affects everyone instead of the intended target.

    I would point to the previous comment about Chicago's gun control laws, or DC's. They simply don't work. Of course, when they don't, the gun control people always have a reason, and can't seem to understand it's not about the tool (a firearm), it's about a culture which believes that violence is a solution.

    There is a good book called "On Killing", which is a rather large read but very good. It speaks to desensitizing people to violence as happens through a number of mechanisms. The problem in Baltimore, for example, is this "stop snitching" culture, which has grown from people within the gangs to an overall anti police attitude. Part of this culture is to use violence to solve your own problems. While I agree that the police have had a lot to do with it by their SWAT team approach to the world, the real issue is how we eradicate this violence prone culture.

    The problem is people have been sold a bill of goods that "guns" are the symbol of this, and need to be banned. Therefore, people like Jennifer, who is physically much smaller and much less trained in the ways of violent confrontation than I am, loses a major equilizer. It's like Stockholm syndrome, where inner city african american leaders have abandoned self emppowerment and espoused the views of their oppressors. It's really astounding if you look at it, they're advocating disarming their own populace, which are most likely to be harmed. However, unlike past movements, there is no corresponding embracing of nonviolent alternatives, there is just disarming the victims.

    It really is amazing when you think of it. Counter to this, look on Wikipedia under Malcom X, a man who was photographed ready to protect himself and his family with a firearm simply to make a statement that he was not going to be disempowered.

    Then we have fuckwit idiots like joe whose reaction is that pointing this out is somehow "silly" with all the young men and women getting killed. It's sad how far we've come.

    Well, no, obviously not. I don't dispute your right to defend yourself; I just wonder how often man-jumps-out-of-an-alley rapes occur in the neighborhoods where you live and work. Most rapists are actually someone the victim knows slightly.

    True, they are known, and there is at least a "Creepy" feeling prior, typically something more. This is a good exampe of the equalizer effect of a firearm in such a situation, you can listen to the call or read the story, either one.

  • ||

    LarryA,

    If the US government is so tyrannical that you think armed revolution is only way to challenge it, why haven't you already started the uprising? Or do you think that there are other ways to challenge it?

  • Rhywun||

    Once again the states with their "A" gun control ratings have more crime than their "D" and "F" states.

    I've seen plenty of statistics that show the exact opposite. I pretty much don't trust any statistics on this issue. I've lived in cities in the same state that have very high crime rates (Buffalo, Rochester) and much lower (New York).

    FWIW, I'm lean slightly on the pro-gun side. I just put it way, way down the list of my priorities.

    if people were constantly agitating to ... prevent you from protecting yourself if you felt threatened, you might get upset too

    You're probably right. Luckily I haven't had to make that decision yet - knock on wood.

    PS. I used to carry pepper spray in Buffalo - I wasn't aware that required a permit. WTF?

  • Episiarch||

    For all those discussing with Mortimer, he's the same dick who posted above under "From My Cold Dead Hands". That sort of tells you where he's coming from.

  • Other Matt||

    What you see are the Brady crowd, and the "leaders" of the black community who are staking out a feel good anti violence stand.

    Sorry, should have added "...not necessarily the individuals."

    Distracted in mid typing.

  • Rhywun||

    PPS. I think it's stories like this that ensure gun control won't go away any time soon.

  • Episiarch||

    PS. I used to carry pepper spray in Buffalo - I wasn't aware that required a permit. WTF?

    Dude, in NY (state, not just city) you technically can't touch a handgun without a pistol permit (unless you are a minor and with your parents). I'm not exaggerating about the "touch" part. NY is regulation happy.

  • ||

    "MP-I would disagree with some of this. I agree that people who have to worry are typically urban blacks, with the caveat that a fair number of women are in that group also due to domestic violence."

    women are (fwiw) far less at risk from gun violence (or violence in general) than males, white OR black

  • Rimfax||

    LarryA,

    As much as I am against gun control, even John "Mary Rosh" Lott, Jr. found that gun control had a minimal effect on crime in the US. The fact that the Brady "A" states have worse crime is a correlation without a cause. Politically, gun control is caused by crime more than the other way around. More likely though, gun control and and crime are both caused by population density.

    I don't see a winning candidate for gun control on either side of the aisle. I don't see Romney or McCain vetoing any gun control bill that Obama would sign. I only see them using different reasoning for doing so. Obama for "crime" and Romney and McCain for "terrorism".

  • Other Matt||

    PPS. I think it's stories like this that ensure gun control won't go away any time soon.

    This being close to me, I read this yesterday evening. I actually know the next door neighbors who know the kid and the father. Apparantly they've had a lot of trouble for a while. I can't see why he killed his mother and siblings though, it's very sad.

    I agree that there will be people who want 'gun control' as a result, but they fail to recognize that the child could not purchase a gun already, his father left an unsecured firearm out, which in addition to being stupid is also illegal in MD (though that didn't help him much). So, another law or two wouldn't help the situation, not to mention that murder itself is kind of against the law

    Again, it's a reaction to violence, where the tool is the focus rather than the individual.

    Though, joe would probably call me "silly" for pointing it out, right joe?

  • ||

    "Perhaps. I can't claim to understand why an issue that has such a minimal impact on the vast majority of people is so important to that group."

    minimal impact? there are hundreds of millions of guns in scores of millions of hands in the US. here in WA state (a damn liberal state unfortunately, but one with a libertarian constitution regarding right to carry), i know literally dozens of people who carry firearms concealed frequently.

    and for people denied their right to carry in DC etc. this is also extremely important.

    this issue affects a LOT of people. it's also, unlike MJ (people who would vote for obama because of his MJ stance (decrim - whcih i agree with) despite his gun stance are imo placing a far LESs important issue over a more important one.

    he is EXTREMELY anti-gun, despite his current rhetoric. he is as close to a full fledged pro-BAN guy as i have seen in politics.

  • Kap||

    I'm not exaggerating about the "touch" part.



    As someone who used to live in upstate NY, I can second that this is actually true.

    Also, pepper spray is illegal. I didn't know you could own it with a permit, I think that's fairly recent.

    Rhywun, I think you were unknowingly committing a felony.

  • Episiarch||

    Rhywun, I think you were unknowingly committing a felony.

    And you were doing it to...protect yourself. See how these issues can mean a lot to people? What if you were arrested by the cops for having that pepper spray?

  • Tom Walls||

    "Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
    Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

    That includes semi-auto pistols, presumably. I'll bet that Obama's guards carry semi-automatic pistols.

    Obama or Romney or Hillary or most Americans for that matter don't even know what semi-automatic means, nor are they familiar with what existing laws cover and do not cover. Neither do most journalists.

    I would not live in a state that forbids me to own an M1 Carbine or SKS.

    Ironically, there are certain semi-automatic weapons that you can own legally in Canada and Germany that you can't have here.

  • Fluffy||

    Joe, I told you to fuck off because I have to assume you were the parody troll. You're practically the only strongly pro-gun-control person on this board, you had already appeared on the thread, it was early in the morning and there didn't seem to be very many people around, etc. So I assume you are / were the parody troll.

    If you aren't, then hey - my bad.

  • Rhywun||

    Rhywun, I think you were unknowingly committing a felony.

    I wonder how far that excuse would have got me.

    there are hundreds of millions of guns in scores of millions of hands in the US

    Right, and virtually everyone who wants guns already has them or can get them reasonably easily. Which means the real concern is the slippery slope; and as with so many other issues (abortion comes to mind) what a politician advocates at the local level doesn't translate nationally. In other words, I don't think President Obama has banning guns on his agenda.

  • Fluffy||

    They have an irrational fear of weapons. Why else are they trying to ban/"control" weapons that are not used to commit crimes ("assault" rifles, .50 BMG rifles, etc.)?

    So they think the weapons cause cancer? Poison the water? Cause autism?

    Come on.

    They fear the weapons because they believe they will be used to commit a crime. That makes the motivation fear of crime.

    There's a tiny aspect of fear of accidental discharge, kids playing with guns, etc. - but this is a miniscule element of the argument. The only way guns can be viewed as dangerous, rationally or irrationally, is if they're used in a crime.

  • ||

    PPS. I think it's stories like this that ensure gun control won't go away any time soon.

    The father's name in the linked story is John Browning. I't a sad, sad story, but I'll admit to an ironic smile when I read that.

  • ||

    "Right, and virtually everyone who wants guns already has them or can get them reasonably easily."

    no, they can;t,. not in chicago, DC, New York, etc. etc. and many that HAVE them can't carry them. this is one of the most uninformed statements i have read here in weeks.

    congrats.

    "Which means the real concern is the slippery slope; "

    no. the REAL concern is expanding gun rights in areas that have severely curtailed them.

    "and as with so many other issues (abortion comes to mind) what a politician advocates at the local level doesn't translate nationally. "

    that is the first remotely correct thing you have said, since it's LARGELY in the scotus' hands.

    of course a president APPOINTS scotus justices, so in the long run it IS in his hands to a very large extent.

    "In other words, I don't think President Obama has banning guns on his agenda."

    i haven';t seen any evidence that you think when it comes to this issue. "feel" maybe.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't deny there is a racial component at all, but the soccer mom would want to have guns out of the hands of skinhead gangs or white thugs just as much as blacks. If most of the "criminals" she sees are black (for whatever reason), then the association is epiphenomenal. She doesn't fear guns in the hands of blacks because they are black. She fears guns in the hands of criminals, most of whom (rightly or wrongly) she sees as minorities.

    I simply disagree.

    Most people have very little chance of being the victim of a gun crime. "Suburban soccer moms" have next to no chance of being a victim of gun crime. I would argue that pro-gun-control suburban soccer moms have an outsized view of the danger guns pose to them because they emotionally associate guns with urban minority criminals. This association produces a fear that is out of proportion.

    If the only gun crime that existed was undertaken by rural white meth gangs, gun control would not have the powerful appeal it does to white liberal non-urban populations.

    Can I prove this? Of course not. But it's certainly a lot more rooted in valid observations than the "false consciousness" arguments offered up by the left every day. If the left can claim that people on the right who don't think they are racist actually are racist but somehow don't realize it, I can offer the same argument about them.

  • Rhywun||

    And you were doing it to...protect yourself.

    Good point. I'm admittedly a little wobbly on the issue. However, pepper spray is non-lethal. I have no desire to carry around a lethal weapon.

  • ||

    Okay. Concerns about urban violence are not racist; they're realist.

    Some conerns about urban violence are racist, some are realist, and some are both. Some of the ideas to stem that violence that are put for by realists are absurd; some of the ideas put forth by prejudiced people are valid.

    There's really nothing, other than a warm glow of self-satisfation, to be gained by declaring that the people you disagree with about gun laws are racist in the their black little hearts.

  • Fluffy||

    If you got to debate a gun control proponent in a public arena and spouted off about the gun control buy being a racist and everyone who supports gun control being a racist, you would do more harm to your cause than good.

    Right, because leftists haven't had any success with similar tactics. Silly me.

    The center moves because one extreme decides to attack attack attack attack. If gun control advocates were shamed by the accusation of racism, and if it were even remotely plausible, some of them would stop and scratch their heads. Some of them would go on the defensive. And some of them would laugh. Nothing wrong with that outcome at all.

  • ||

    Other Matt, as I've amply demonstrated for years now, I am quite willing to discuss different beliefs with people.

    I am not willing to waste my time with asshats who run around declaring that disagreeing with them on an issue that has nothing to do with racism makes one a racist.

  • Fluffy||

    There's really nothing, other than a warm glow of self-satisfation, to be gained by declaring that the people you disagree with about gun laws are racist in the their black little hearts.

    Is that true of every aspect of public policy?

  • ||

    Here's what Other Matt, with his surpassing commitment to intellectual honesty and deep undestanding of the issues, has to say about the proposals to tighten regulations about selling guns to mentally-ill people in the wake of the Virginai Tech massacre:

    I guess we can add Koreans to blacks and irish as people who aren't worthy to have firearms?

    Lick my balls, Matt. Gee, why wouldn't anyone want to discuss an issue with you? It must be because we're racists. Dick.

  • Rhywun||

    no, they can;t,. not in chicago, DC, New York, etc. etc. and many that HAVE them can't carry them. this is one of the most uninformed statements i have read here in weeks.

    So where's the outcry? Show me the masses in those cities clamoring to own guns. People who WANT guns tend tend to live in (or move to) areas where guns are popular. I suggest you read what I write more carefully before you embarrass yourself any further.

    i haven';t seen any evidence that you think when it comes to this issue.

    Of course not. But there have been plenty of gun-control Democrats in the White House, and so far no national, blanket bans. Obama has about as much chance of banning handguns nationwide as Huck does abortion.

  • ||

    BTW, the demographic that supports gun control by the most lopsided margins is inner-city African Americans.

    All of whom are obviously racists, because it makes Other Matt feel good to believe they are.

  • ||

    "I believe that through common-sense measures, we can keep guns from those who may pose a threat, while also protecting the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen." - Barack Obama


    This election may come down to a guy who thinks the 2nd amendment has something to do with "hunters and sportsmen" vs. the other fella who thinks the 1st amendment doesn't cover political speech.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    I am not remoately a "strongly-pro-gun control person."

    I just happen to debate my politics with people who are fringe radicals on the issue. I am probably dead center among the American public in my opinion about gun control, and would be just fine with repealing a good deal of it.

    And sorry about the misunderstanding. As someone who is racist to the core, I just assumed you were a black person and wanted to swear at you.

  • ||

    "So where's the outcry? "

    only in the polls (even many democrats admit that al gore would have won handily if he had not been so anti-gun), and in all those states that have PASSED concealed carry in the last 20 years. do you have any idea how many more states are now "right to carry" vs. 20 yrs ago?

    "Show me the masses in those cities clamoring to own guns. People who WANT guns tend tend to live in (or move to) areas where guns are popular."

    you mean where gun rights are RESPECTED. and fwiw, some peopel DO choose to live where gun rights are respected. that doesn't mean there aren't many many people in cities like NYC that want to carry. NRA membership is more extensive than you would think. it's just a minority.

    " I suggest you read what I write more carefully before you embarrass yourself any further."

    your post was laughably inaccurate and i pointed out why

  • ||

    rhywun, look at this map.

    and tell me there hasn't been an OUTCRY and there hasn't been a response.

    http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

  • Pat||

    Gun control in the cities is a misdirected drug war issue that few people see clearly. We don't need more regulation of guns we need some regulation of the drug markets so that criminals do not dominate distribution.

    The reason that cheap and easy to get 'illegal' guns proliferate on city streets is because there is a huge demand for them by the drug gangsters. Regulate the drug markets and there would be a significant reduction in demand for illegal guns. Market forces would quickly reduce the quantity of guns on the streets because the reduced demand would raise the price of the weapons making them less accessible to street creeps.

    Another factor is the criminalization process of the drug war. As more and more citizens are removed from the legitimate economy by drug convictions they become more dependent on the criminal culture and economy for economic sustenance. Once they are dependent on crime for economic support its just a step or two away from becoming desperate enough to buy a gun to empower their criminal economic viability.

    End the war on drugs and America's streets would become much safer.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    Yes, shouting "racist racist racist" is a huge political loser, regardless of the issue, and an intellectual loser, crowding out rational discourse. Do you think Other Matt, for example, is going to get a substantive response from me at any point in this thread?

  • dhex||

    Obama has about as much chance of banning handguns nationwide as Huck does abortion.

    that seems a fair slice of how things will go down.

    on the other hand, a lot of the shit that's popped up during the reign of bush the younger was science fiction in 2000.

  • highnumber||

    Also: I wonder if Obama had a permit to carry a handgun in Chicago? And if he didn't, I wonder how much trouble he would have had getting one?

    This nearly made me spit out my tea.

    (I'm sure someone has addressed this comment already, but I don't have time to read everything here right now.)

  • Fluffy||

    Yes, shouting "racist racist racist" is a huge political loser, regardless of the issue, and an intellectual loser, crowding out rational discourse.

    OK, fine. I will stop crying "racist racist racist" about gun control.

    I would only ask that you remember that you said this.

  • ||

    "Yes, shouting "racist racist racist" is a huge political loser, regardless of the issue"

    note that there are a heck of alot of hypocrites on this issue.

    i am pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration.

    there are a LOT of people on this board that CONSTANTLY play the race card and claim that those of us who are strongly for enforcing our borders, etc. are doing it for racist reasons.

    the irony is pretty frigging thick.

    note that liberals do the same with racial preferences. if you support EQUAL treatment (vs. racial preferences) you are racist.

    i know many in reason, and many libertarians like to think they are above the fray, but politicis is politics and partisanship is partisanship.

  • sv||

    what are the rules for carrying concealed knives in nyc?

  • ||

    "Obama has about as much chance of banning handguns nationwide as Huck does abortion."

    presidents appoint scotus justices. he may not be able to BAN them, but given a retirement or two, and an appointment or two he could significantly affect gun rights.

  • ||

    whit,

    I'll grant you the immigration issue, and I personally make a point of not going for the cheap "You hate brown people" argument when it is not merited, but I'd invite you to go back to any of the affirmative action threads, and report back what you find out about who is throwing around accusations of racism at their opponents.

    Lemme give you a hint: it ain't me, babe. You'll find an awful lot of such accusations, and they're all coming from the right.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I have been impressed recently with the rational calm discussions of abortion on Hit&Run.

    Funny how the same tone never appears in gun control threads.

    So, let me state first that I don't support gun control.

    Now: Those who feel gun control laws are, at their root, racist, have a very, very, very, very, very, weak argument. So much projection goes into statements about the state of mind of "the average soccer mom" and her fear of "minority, inner city criminals."

    If that is your main fear say it. Say it proud. Tell people "I am afraid of non-white people with guns." Don't put your fear into the heads of the average soccer mom.

    If you see race as the primary organizing principle of our society, then the "code for black" statements make sense. But for most people they are just so much gibberish (here I project my view as the average, see how that works).

    LarryA,

    Once again the states with their "A" gun control ratings have more crime than their "D" and "F" states.

    I know you are smart enough to recognize that there is no way to figure out the direction of the causal arrow from the apparent correlation (see rimfax above). . . however, it is much more likely to go:

    High crime leads to more gun control

    than

    gun control leads to more crime.

    And...the impact of those gun control laws will be minimal.

    Jennifer,
    No gun control law I know would keep you from owning a gun to protect yourself. As long as you don't have a criminal record, you should be able to purchase your gun. Your hyperbole about "unintended consequences" is a rather thin argument for that reason.

  • Rhywun||

    and tell me there hasn't been an OUTCRY and there hasn't been a response

    Without knowing popular opinion on the issue in each state, it's hard to distinguish an "outcry" from "we got it passed by one vote". My point is simply that the issue is of less concern than you think it is, especially in large cities. I've lived in big cities all my life: trust me, there's no outcry. You may be right that "lots" of people would own guns if it were easier to do so, but again the issue is rather far down the list of concerns.

  • dhex||

    what are the rules for carrying concealed knives in nyc?

    anything over 4 inches is illegal.

    and no spring-lock or "butterfly" style knives; they've been illegal since (iirc) the 1950s.

  • sv||

    i think the point about intentions vs. real-world effects is a good one. just like the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity, gun bans are popular among inner-city black leaders themselves because they are inundated with crime and desperately resort to draconian measures in the belief that these will keep the worst criminal elements locked up, keep guns out of their hands or get them (along w/ 'non-crook' citizens) locked up for having any gun, and thus reduce crime. it doesn't seem to work, though. are they accepting societal biases against blacks? i think they're just reacting to the uniquely endemic crime problems they have. The problem rests at a scope which is beyond just their communities. [BACK OFF FROM THE DRUG WAR!]

    it is true that gun bans do in effect disarm people like jennifer who are trying to go about their legitimate business unimpeded.

  • ||

    "I'll grant you the immigration issue, and I personally make a point of not going for the cheap "You hate brown people" argument when it is not merited, but I'd invite you to go back to any of the affirmative action threads, and report back what you find out about who is throwing around accusations of racism at their opponents.

    Lemme give you a hint: it ain't me, babe. You'll find an awful lot of such accusations, and they're all coming from the right."

    my point is the right does it, the left does it, and libertarians do it.

    the left: affirmative action and immigration
    libertarians (here): immigration
    the right: gun control

    etc.

    the point is its wrong. and a sophomoric *(but unfortunately sometimes effective, as it places people on the defensive) tactic when used by anybody.

    and libertarians do it too.

  • ||

    "Without knowing popular opinion on the issue in each state, it's hard to distinguish an "outcry" from "we got it passed by one vote". My point is simply that the issue is of less concern than you think it is, especially in large cities. I've lived in big cities all my life: trust me, there's no outcry. "

    and i've lived in big cities too. the point is that people tend to surround themselves with fellow travelers. that's why the pauline kael effect is so common.

    i'm not going to get into a semantical wank to parse "outcry"

    this is what you said earlier, that is simply false, and you should admit it.

    "Right, and virtually everyone who wants guns already has them or can get them reasonably easily. "

    i'll quote you: VIRTuALLY EVERYONE WHO WANTS GUNS ALREADY HAS THEM OR CAN GET THEM REASONABLY EASILY.

    false. not even remotely close to 'virtually everyone".

    furthermore, as i said, those that can GET them, often want to CARRY them and can't in many many many areas.

    this is a serious issue

  • ||

    The gun lobby has lowered their sights (heh) to shall-issue concealed carry laws for the same reason that the gun control lobby has lowered theirs to background checks for mentally ill people; because there has been a rough consensus worked out among a big chunk of the center that widespread public ownership of guns is reality, that broad efforts to disarm ordinary people buying ordinary guns (the DC ban on all handguns, for exampale) is both useless and overly-intrusive, and that most of the problem with gun violence is the result of dangerous criminals or mentally ill people, so that gun control efforts should be aimed at keeping guns out of their hands in particular.

    It is unlikely that any candidate is going to stake out a position outside, or even close to the edges of, this consensus, so it is unlikely that gun control will play much of a role in the election at all. The NRA-types might get some good fund-raising out of their base, but they'd be voting Republican anyway.

  • ||

    sv,

    i think the point about intentions vs. real-world effects is a good one. just like the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity, gun bans are popular among inner-city black leaders themselves because they are inundated with crime and desperately resort to draconian measures in the belief that these will keep the worst criminal elements locked up, keep guns out of their hands or get them (along w/ 'non-crook' citizens) locked up for having any gun, and thus reduce crime. it doesn't seem to work, though. are they accepting societal biases against blacks? i think they're just reacting to the uniquely endemic crime problems they have. The problem rests at a scope which is beyond just their communities.

    I would agree, and throw school vouchers into the same category. There's an old saying, a drowining man will grab even the point of a sword.

  • ||

    They fear the weapons because they believe they will be used to commit a crime. That makes the motivation fear of crime.

    But for their high-profile initiatives re assault rifles, .50 BMG weapons, etc., that is an irrational fear because such weapons are not, in fact, used to commit crimes.

    Their rhetoric betrays them here. The language of gun control is replete with statements that guns cause crime, for example. Gun controllers get most worked up about guns that look or sound scary, but aren't used in crime. Their proposals are overbroad, and seek to reduce gun ownership by people who have not committed crimes and show no propensity to do so.

    They are afraid of the thing itself, and only secondarily that it might be used to commit crimes. Crime control is a pretext.

  • ||

    "It is unlikely that any candidate is going to stake out a position outside, or even close to the edges of, this consensus, so it is unlikely that gun control will play much of a role in the election at all. The NRA-types might get some good fund-raising out of their base, but they'd be voting Republican anyway."

    obama has made NUMEROUS statements well outside these positions and those are a matter of record. many dems admit that gore's gun control stance hurt him significantly..

    unfortunately, i still think obama can win.

  • ||

    whit,

    If you actually go back to any affirmative action threads on Hit and Run, you will see that libertarians and conservatives most certaindly DO play the race card on affirmative action, much moreson than liberals.

    Watch this:

    Hey, Jennifer, are you ready to apologize for calling me a racist yet?

  • ||

    No gun control law I know would keep you from owning a gun to protect yourself.

    Oh c'mon. She can't own a handgun at all in D.C.

    In some places, she can't keep a gun loaded and ready for use in her house, meaning its useless for self-defense.

    She can't carry any kind of gun for self-defense in a number of states, and that includes keeping it in her car, meaning, again, its useless for self-defense outside of her home.

  • ||

    A politicians stance on gun control--beyond the actual issue itself--says a lot about how much they trust individuals to run their own lives. Its a great litmus test to see how authoritarian someone is.

  • ||

    RC,

    It's probably safe to say that there are a lot of different motivations for people who support gun control.

    The motivation for banning "cheap Saturday Night Specials" probably comes from a different place than the motivation for banning "assault rifles."

    whit,

    I seriously doubt Obama will run on any positions outside of that consensus, because he knows it would be bad politics to do so. Old votes on big bills can be explained away.

    Maybe he is, in his secret heart of hearts, somebody who wants universal firearm bans. Even if this true, which it probably isn't, he's going to run on a safe, centrist platform.

  • Rhywun||

    this is what you said earlier, that is simply false, and you should admit it.

    I'm not the liberal in your head. I don't live in some stupid bubble surrounded only by fellow travellers. I know *plenty* of people right here in NYS who own guns. My parents, for example. It's *not* that difficult to get them. As for "outcry", I'll take "one shred of evidence that a person attempted to get a gun and was unable to do so". I read news from all political angles: I have heard no such "outcry".

  • ||

    If Obama wants to play in the upper South or even the Southwest, he better not start running his mouth about assault weapons bans, handgun licensing, or any other form of gun control. I bet that would cost him dozens of electoral votes.

  • Neu Mejican||

    RC Dean,

    She can't own a handgun at all in D.C.

    Slipped my mind...What are the rules on rifles/shot-guns in DC?
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/939429/girl_with_a_real_big_gun/

    But seriously, that law was declared unconstitutional, no?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
    Did I miss some further development?

    In some places, she can't keep a gun loaded and ready for use in her house, meaning its useless for self-defense.

    I would need a more detailed citation to believe that one...but this is clearly outside the boundary of what most gun-control supporters support.

  • ||

    "If you actually go back to any affirmative action threads on Hit and Run, you will see that libertarians and conservatives most certaindly DO play the race card on affirmative action, much moreson than liberals."

    that may be true IN hit and run/ i was speaking of liberals, conservatives and libertarians IN GENERAL on these issues.

    the history of the passage of equal rights statutes in opposition to affirmative action (Jjust ask ward connerly) is the history of liberals crying RACIST everytime a conservative questioned racial preferences.

    just look at college affirmative action bake sale controversy, etc.

  • ||

    OK, in meat-space, you can find liberals who play the race card in affirmative action debates just as much as conservatives and libertarians.

    BTW, Ward Connerly plays the race card like Al Sharpton doubling up on Dexatrim.

  • ||

    "OK, in meat-space, you can find liberals who play the race card in affirmative action debates just as much as conservatives and libertarians."

    in the "real world". believe it or not, reason is a microcosm thereof, and the liberals who tend to frequent reason are not your "garden variety" liberals.

  • Jennifer||

    "OK, in meat-space, you can find liberals who play the race card in affirmative action debates just as much as conservatives and libertarians."

    What card other than the race card should you play when someone is arguing that people should be legally treated differently because of their race? Yes, I'll play the race card when I argue against AA, and if I'd been alive when legal segregation was still being debated I'd've played the race card then, too.

  • ||

    people most likely to rant and rave against ANY local gun control measures are, well, not urban blacks.



    Urban blacks overwelmingly oppose gun-control.

    Urban blacks, however, don't have much choice in political candidates because big city politics is controlled by the Democratic political machines. When given the choice to vote on the issue directly on the ballot, as opposed to having elected officials vote for them, they overwelmingly oppose gun control.

    There's really nothing, other than a warm glow of self-satisfation, to be gained by declaring that the people you disagree with about gun laws are racist in the their black little hearts.



    People who support gun control are afraid of certain demographics of people having guns. Guns are inanimate objects, and can't shoot anyone by themselves, and no-one supports gun-control for cops & military, so the fear is certain people having the guns, not the guns themselves.

    The group of people in question isn't always a race. It could be poor people. It could be "red necks". It could be blacks. It could be civilians (and an inherent trust that the police and military are better than the common people).

    However, the fear of guns is the fear of certain classes of people having guns, that much is undeniable. It is a form of elitism, and a form of class warfare, even if you are as afraid of drunken rednecks stereotype as much as you are the urban black criminal stereotype and therefore not technically "racist". Gun control might not always be racist, but it is always elitist and undemocratic.

    Also, it is undeniable is that gun control will be enforced disproportionally black people. Do you imagine, joe, that upper-middle class homes in fashionable suburbs are going to be raided by SWAT teams on a regular basis? Do you think for a second that the banker in a $2000 suit is going to be randomly searched for weapons when he is walking down the street, the same way black people are today? Do you deny, joe, that the War On Drugs is primarily targeted at minorities and the poor, not the upper-middle class white folk? Do you deny joe, that blacks are disproportionally imprisoned on drug charges compared to white people (and poor people disproportionally to rich people). Do you deny that a War On Guns will likely have just a racist as the War On Drugs.

    So we established the fact that gun control is elitist and based on fears of other social classes... and we established that the effect of gun control will be racist, regardless of the intention of some of its supporters. So why is it such a stretch joe, that some reasonable people would assume that all gun-control is based on racism. It might not be 100% true in all cases, but it isn't as outlandish as you make it seem.

  • ||

    by playing the race card vis a vis affirmative action, i mean when liberals claim that people who oppose racial preferences are just

    1) racist
    2) hate minorities
    3) hate black people
    etc.

    that's pretty common.

    similarly, in reason, people who support laws against illegal immigration are told they are racist, afraid of brownpeople etc.

    same disease

  • ||

    The motivation for banning "cheap Saturday Night Specials" probably comes from a different place than the motivation for banning "assault rifles."

    One is from being scared of muggers, the other is from being scared of unwashed militia types. Both are stupid.

  • ||

    banning saturday night specials = banning affordable (for poorer people) guns

    apparently, affordable is a dirty word when it comes to GUNS, but is good for nearly everything else - food, healthcare, etc.

    ironic

  • Jennifer||

    apparently, affordable is a dirty word when it comes to GUNS, but is good for nearly everything else - food, healthcare, etc.

    I think I've figured out how to make the hand-wringers support gun rights for the poor! Listen carefully: GUN PURCHASES FOR POOR PEOPLE SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Fold gun ownership into the welfare state, and then no liberal will be caught dead arguing against a poor person's right to self-defense.

    The trick is to make such rights dependent upon government largesse, you see. Any personal right that increases the power of the government is a GOOD thing.

    Damn, what a shame my past precludes any chance of my getting elected.

  • alisa||

    "Gun control might not always be racist, but it is always elitist and undemocratic."

    Pretty much true. This is what puzzles me most about my progressive friends: how certain they are that it's dangerous to leave any decisions in the hands of ignorant ordinary people. It's a difference that comes up on just about every topic. Heated (and completely unrelated) discussion about Columbia University's expansion plans:

    Friend: "But really, I don't think a car repair shop does much for the tone of the neighborhood. It's not necessarily a bad thing to tear those down for college buildings."
    Me: "But it's their repair shop! You can't get rid of it without compensation!"

    This bothers me a bit.

  • ||

    Jennifer, see if you can follow this:

    1. That law is likely to have a disparate impact on minorities.

    2. Treating people differently because of their race is unjust.

    3. Affirmative action promotes race-based thinking.

    4. You are a racist who hates black people and thinks they're stupid.

    One of these is playing the race card. Three of them are making a point about race, but are not playing the race card.

    Can you figure out the difference?

  • ||

    Rex,

    Urban blacks overwelmingly oppose gun-control.

    Go find a poll on gun control that's broken down by race, because you are full of shit.

    And when you're done with that, look up the difference between "asserted" and "established."

  • ||

    Oh, and Rex? You make some appropriate and accurate points about disparate impact, but I'm not going to discuss them with you, because you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of having a substantive, fact-based discussion that doesn't involve demonizing your opponents on the issue.

  • ||

    I would need a more detailed citation to believe that one...but this is clearly outside the boundary of what most gun-control supporters support.

    Any requirement that guns have some kind of a safety lock on them or that they cannot be stored loaded or with their ammunition means that they are useless for self-defense. These are exactly the kinds of regulations that the Brady folks were recently pushing.

    I believe there are a few municipalities and perhaps states that have adopted mandatory trigger lock and storage laws. Sorry, no linkee available on where they might be passed (work content filters, doncha know).

  • ||

    yes. disparate impact arguments are not racist or sexist.

    they are often silly, too.

    bank robbery laws disporportionately impact men over women. men are arrested at over 9X the rate that women are under these laws :)

    but your point is valid.

  • ||

    It's probably safe to say that there are a lot of different motivations for people who support gun control.

    Sure. And for your hardcore gun control activists, I feel pretty comfortable asserting its hoplophobia.

    The motivation for banning "cheap Saturday Night Specials" probably comes from a different place than the motivation for banning "assault rifles."

    I think a good part of the motivation for banning Saturday Night Specials was to keep them out of the hands of the blacks and Mexicans.

  • ||

    Warty,

    Are you not scared of muggers? Are you not scared of, say, Timothy McVeigh, or the Stockton California shooter?

    It may well be that the gun-banning regulations are poor responses to such concerns, but it is not stupid on its face to consider gun murders to be a problem. There many thousands of them in each of the last 20 years, you know.

  • ||

    RC, as I recall, you "felt pretty comfortable" saying the motivation for opposing the Iraq War was opposition to Iraqis living in a liberal democracy.

    Your own feelings are a lousy way of figuring out the motivations of your political opponents.

  • ||

    Go find a poll on gun control that's broken down by race, because you are full of shit.



    When I lived in Detroit, a CCW referendum was on the ballot. Detroiters (most of whom are black) overwelmingly voted for CCW. CCW was approved because of the overwelming support in Detroit. Google the Michigan CCW referendum of 2000, someone else can do a better job of explaining the politics than I can.

    Oh, and Rex? You make some appropriate and accurate points about disparate impact, but I'm not going to discuss them with you, because you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of having a substantive, fact-based discussion that doesn't involve demonizing your opponents on the issue.



    I said nothing insulting or demonizing by any stretch of the imagination, and you are the one cursing at me.

    Face it joe, you know I am right. The Gun Control issue makes you so sensitive and unconfortable and unwilling to discuss it with me because deep down you agree with me. It is just that Team Blue is for gun control, and you can't quite bring yourself to disagree with them. And, you know that everyone here would rub it in and be obnoxious if you did change your position, it is just easier to stick with the party line.

  • ||

    Joe, I'm curious, do you support the idea of the government's ability to regulate rights? If so, should they have the ability to regulate all rights, and what's the difference between a right and privilage?

  • ||

    How about simply keeping guns out of the hands of drunken weekend hunters?

    I lived in Upstate NY, and we had more problems with those goofballs going around shooting things than any "crime." Idiots who never looked to see whether they were within shooting distance of a dwelling, or if that white-spotted deer out there was actually a cow. Or "ooh, something rustling in the bushes! Let's shoot it!" resulting in...well, you can guess it.

    I'm for mandatory firearm training and regulation to make sure we at least TRY to keep firearms out of the hands of people who hear voices from God telling them to kill people. Some mandatory anger management might be good as well. It seems to me that if you're going to be walking around with a weapon that can kill people you should at least demonstrate you know how to use it responsibly.

  • Paul||

    How much of a role will gun rights play in the election?



    I supposed it depends how drunk and angry the voters are.

  • ||

    RC, as I recall, you "felt pretty comfortable" saying the motivation for opposing the Iraq War was opposition to Iraqis living in a liberal democracy.

    I honestly don't recall ever saying any such thing. I'm sure most of the opponents to the Iraq war (well, the ones who weren't profiting from Saddam's regime anyway) probably would have had no problem with the Liberal Democracy Fairy riding in on her unicorn and waving a magic wand over Iraq to make it a liberal democracy.

    Your own feelings are a lousy way of figuring out the motivations of your political opponents.

    My political opponents usually do a pretty good job of revealing their motivations. The statements and positions of hardcore gun control activists cannot be explained by concerns about crime nearly as well as they can be explained by an irrational fear of guns.

  • ||

    "I'm for mandatory firearm training and regulation to make sure we at least TRY to keep firearms out of the hands of people who hear voices from God telling them to kill people."

    Dear "grumpy", I'm a certified firearms instructor of more then 10 years. If you'll tell me how you phrase the test question to weed those people out I will contact the head of curriculum for the worlds only trainer certifying organization with 100+ years in the businesss. Really. My cell phones got his number under send right... -now-.

    Lemme know ;)

  • LarryA||

    PS. I used to carry pepper spray in Buffalo - I wasn't aware that required a permit. WTF?

    NY City, not NY the state.

    I know you are smart enough to recognize that there is no way to figure out the direction of the causal arrow from the apparent correlation (see rimfax above). . . however, it is much more likely to go:
    High crime leads to more gun control
    than
    gun control leads to more crime.


    That was a good point a decade ago. But gun control was supposed to drop the crime rate, and in the 20-30 years since the gun control states have had their laws, it hasn't. No matter which way the original causation went, we're now in a chicken-or-egg stage. Therefore, because gun control both doesn't work, and serves as a placebo taking the place of more effective measures, it can be blamed as a cause of the continuing crime rate.

    Particularly since the Brady folks tout their scorecard as a measure of how serious states are in "reducing violence."

    If the US government is so tyrannical that you think armed revolution is only way to challenge it, why haven't you already started the uprising? Or do you think that there are other ways to challenge it?

    Not sure where you got this. I do think that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to any government becoming tyrannical. I don't think the U.S. is there quite yet.

    Jennifer, No gun control law I know would keep you from owning a gun to protect yourself.

    Tell Bernhard Goetz that. Found not guilty, fully justified in defending himself on a NYC subway, but convicted of illegally possessing (after unsuccessful attempts to be legal) the handgun that made his self-defense possible.

    Two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, prohibit self-defense carry. Eight states restrict it to the politically connected. Two major cities, Washington D.C. and Chicago, prohibit handgun ownership. D.C. prohibits having a long gun in your own home for self-defense.

  • ||

    "I supposed it depends how drunk and angry the voters are."
    WTPhrack? who hacked reasons NS records to go to democraticunderground.com ? Hello? tap tap tap "freedom" "liberty"... anybody out there? bk425

  • Neu Mejican||

    LarryA,

    Thanks for the details, but...

    it can be blamed as a cause of the continuing crime rate.

    Nope. It can't be.

    Two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, prohibit self-defense carry.

    Self-defense carry? by this you mean?

    Eight states restrict it to the politically connected.

    Politically connected? Meaning who?

    For both of these, I had/have doubts about how you are characterizing the laws. A quick check of Illinois gun law seems to fit the description, but plain language would be a better way to communicate this stuff...and "use as part of their job" seems a better description than "politically connected" for Illinois at least.

    D.C. prohibits having a long gun in your own home for self-defense.

    Again, this was overturned...no?

  • ||

    "1. That law is likely to have a disparate impact on minorities.

    2. Treating people differently because of their race is unjust.

    3. Affirmative action promotes race-based thinking.

    4. You are a racist who hates black people and thinks they're stupid.

    One of these is playing the race card. Three of them are making a point about race, but are not playing the race card."

    Or is this a priori, deciding how something should be defined, dressing up the definitions, and then insisting that unless someone follows this definition their statements do not fall under the category? Clever debating tactic. But a debating tactic nevertheless.

  • LarryA||

    it can be blamed as a cause of the continuing crime rate.
    Nope. It can't be.


    I think I justified my statement. If the leaders of Washington, D.C. insist that their gun control law is necessary to prevent crime, despite two decades of evidence to the contrary, and refuse to consider more effective measures, then that action is at least somewhat responsible for the crime rate remaining high. If you can't accept that, we'll have to disagree.

    And yes, that particular law has been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court, but has not yet gone to the Supreme Court. Look for it the end of summer. But it's taken thirty years to get that far.

    Two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, prohibit self-defense carry.
    Self-defense carry? by this you mean?


    There is no provision for an ordinary citizen to get a license to carry a concealed handgun (as in the thirty eight states with shall-issue laws), or to legally carry without one (as is legal in Alaska and Vermont).

    Eight states restrict it to the politically connected.
    Politically connected? Meaning who?


    Eight states have "discretionary" license systems. No matter how qualified you are the issuing authorities can turn down your license application for any reason. The reason most often officially cited is because you don't need to protect yourself, since you can rely on government-supplied law enforcement. (Despite numerous court rulings that police are not responsible for protecting you as an individual.) It's the equivalent to refusing to issue you, as a qualified driver, a license to operate a private auto because the authorities think you should rely on public transportation.

    Some jurisdictions run these systems fairly, but most do not. In Los Angeles County, for instance, almost all concealed carry licenses are issued to judges or celebrities. San Francisco issues very few licenses; at one time the only person who had one was Diane Feinstein, their anti-gun U.S. Senator. The NYC license list is a who's who of celebrities and political cronies. And the beat goes on.

    I had a couple in one of my CHL classes who had just moved to Texas from a discretionary state. They had both applied for licenses, going through the entire process, fulfilling all the requirements, submitting all the forms, and paying all the nonrefundable fees. Then they met with three county officials who would decide if they "needed" the license or not.

    The county committee authorized his license, reluctantly. They denied hers. After all, he had one, so if anything went wrong he could protect her.

    If that happened in any other licensing situation NOW and the national media would have been all over it. But it's okay to discriminate against people when it comes to gun control.

    Ironically, when they took the practical shooting test she was the better shot.

  • ||

    The fact that the Brady Campaign against Handguns is and ALWAYS has been based on lies, should make it clear to Americans that gun control is A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY!

    I am referring to the fact that I was the person who provided the U.S. Government with information about John Hinkley, and the REAL GROUP of subversives behind the assassination attempt on Pres. Ronald Reagan. I provided this information WELL BEFORE the assassination attempt occurred.

    I provided the U.S. government with Hinkleys name, where he had attended college (for a short time), the fact that HOLLYWEIRDO SUBVERSIVES HAD DRUGGED AND BRAINWASHED HINKLEY, WITH OUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION!!! This means that GUNS OWNERSHIP OR AVAILABLITY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOOTING OF BRADY!!!!

    Additionally, I was also the person who provided the U.S. Government with information about 4 of the 5 assassination attempts AGAINST PRES. FORD BEFORE THEY OCCURRED!!! AND THESE WERE ALSO THE WORK OF HOLLYWEIRDO SUBVERSIVES!!!

    NONE of these rich celebrities were EVER arrested, tried or convicted of the ACTS OF TREASON which they committed!!! Our government has LIED TO ALL OF YOU ABOUT THE TRUE SICK-O's BEHIND THESE MURDERS! AND THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THIS FACT TO LIE TO THE USA. THE BRADY CAMPAIGHN HAS BEEN LIEING TO AMERICA FOR DECADES, and NO ONE IN THE MEDIA HAS THE GUTS TO CALL THEM LIARS!!!

  • ||

    A hallmark of the Left is their "solution" to the abuse of freedom. To those who sincerely respect liberty, the remedy would obviously be to remove from society those who demonstrate that they lack the self-discipline to live among their fellow citizens without preying on them, assaulting them, killing them, etc. To those of Mr. Obama's ilk, the remedy is to remove from everyone whatever freedom is being abused. This mindset is applicable in the area of firearms ownership, but also to so many other aspects of human rights. The ultimate result is an existence where one's life is micromanaged at every turn by some representative of the State. Most Americans don't even recognize what is being taken away from them on a daily basis, in the name of "security." It is easier for most of us to ignore or rationalize the fact that our freedom is being usurped than it is to stand up for the liberty of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States. You need not take my word for it; open your eyes and see for yourselves.

  • Neu Mejican||

    LarryA,

    Thanks for the clarification.

    FWIW, I don't equate concealed carry with self-defense carry.

    But we've been through this before.
    Open carry is the better policy, imho, for handguns, tazers, big nasty knives, whatever.

    I know I am in the minority around here on that point, but there ya go. It seems that rights also come with responsibilities...in my mind one of the responsibilities of carrying around a deadly weapon is being open about it.

    For instance, if you conceal your weapon, and I don't want it on my property, you take away my control over what goes on on my property. With open carry, I can see that you have it, ask you to check it at the door, leave it in the car, whatever...

    yadda yadda,

    Still don't think your can point your causal arrow from gun laws to high crime. It assumes that gun laws are the only anti-crime activities in these areas, or that the displace some other program. There is no logical reason to assume either occurs.

  • Neu Mejican||

    To expand on the above scenario...

    Open carry laws protect your right to carry your weapon in public, and protect my control over my own property. They also help to make a clearer distinction between people with weapons who respect the rule of law and those that don't...to over simplify a bit.

  • Neu Mejican||

    And, since we had all the racism talk above...a bit of science

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/ts_afp/sciencegeneticsbiologyevolution2_080204234528


    "But the genes that explain the phenotypic differences between populations only represent a tiny part of our genome, confirming once again that the concept of 'race' from a genetic standpoint has been abolished," he added.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Tell Bernhard Goetz that. Found not guilty, fully justified in defending himself on a NYC subway, but convicted of illegally possessing (after unsuccessful attempts to be legal) the handgun that made his self-defense possible.

    I am pretty sure that Bernard Goetz is not the best example to use in arguments with those who support gun control. I doubt you will find too many who support gun control that will point to his conviction on illegal gun possession as a bad thing. He's not a very good poster boy.

  • ||

    I called Obama's office a year or so ago on some Illinois anti-gun legislation, his staff outright lied to me saying "Senator Obama would never support anti-gun legislation".
    Yes Liar through and through. and the link between racism and gun control is obviuos. Was the 68 gun control act passed for fear of hippies or minorities...???? hmmmm.

  • ||

    """A hallmark of the Left is their "solution" to the abuse of freedom. """

    Have you been asleep for the last seven years? How is this only a hallmark of the left?

    """Most Americans don't even recognize what is being taken away from them on a daily basis, in the name of "security." It is easier for most of us to ignore or rationalize the fact that our freedom is being usurped than it is to stand up for the liberty of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States. You need not take my word for it; open your eyes and see for yourselves.""

    I agree. But the reduction on a daily basis has been at the hands of the right for 6 of the last 7 years.

    With truly open eyes, it's obviously not a left vs right issue. They are BOTH to blame.

  • SuprKufr||

    I would like to add:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=0GdmHOJTW0Y

    It helps explain some of the "progressive" sentiments behind "gun" control.

  • ||

    Both Clinton and Obama are in favor of gun control because they are both supported by anti-gun groups' funds. Right now the UN is proliferating a propaganda campaign to support gun ban to a way that the right of self-defense is considered a violation of human rights. It means that a rapist have full protection of the law to attack a victim, but if that victim defend herself from such attack, she might be treated as an criminal. Another black agenda is the fact that those Liberals will force those same regulations to family planification in order to support abort clinics because they can comercialize stem cell. So not only those anti gun right liberals are racist but also they are potential infanticide praisers. We all have a right to protect ourselves, our families and everything we worked very hard for. That's how this United States of America was created. Our forefather stood by their grounds and defeated tyrany. Remember New Orleans after Katrina. One liberal politician was responsible for the chaos because he tought that taking the guns from law abiding citizens could keep order but insted they got anarchy. I will never, ever give away my guns. As a veteran and as a gun owner I oppose the Democratic Party. The second amendment is indeed a individual and fundamental right that every American must cherish because is not just the right to keep and bear arms but also the right for self-defense from any threat we could face. God bless the USA and the NRA!

  • ||

    Women--especially soccer moms--need to wake up. They are at such a natural disadvantage that the *only* reasonable form of self-protection from thugs is a gun. Thugs don't need a gun to rape a woman--males are generally stronger and larger.

    If a woman wants to protect herself and her family, her best bet is well-trained concealed-carry. But unless she ferries money or valuables for a business, that won't happen in Maryland.

    Women's lives aren't worth much anywhere, are they?

  • ||

    Oh my gosh - you people wouldn't believe that there are nations in the world who'd chuckle at this if it weren't so tragic. Yeah, we had a highschool shooting of our own in Erfurt some years ago - as for me, I'm just glad we don't have one every other week... But yeah, I see your point. We must offer every child in America three free assault rifles with silencer. And death sentence to people who have accidentaly seen gay porn with their own eyes and to doctors who fight to apply LSD or MDMA in a clinical setting (children at least know what they're talking about!) Full Ack.
    No better way to say what I think than with the words of Volker Pispers, my favourite cabaret artist (in a free translation):
    "So after the elections our Chancellor Mr. Schroeder reminded us that we shouldn't fall into a shallow anti-americanism. But Mr. Schroeder, mine isn't shallow at all..."

    Just in case anyone in here cares about more than himself, his car, and his gun: Do yourself a favor and this time don't vote for a president the whole world (with the notable exception of Iran, Iraq and the UK) totally laughs about...

    Amadeus (Düsseldorf, Germany)

  • ||

    Well, Amadeus, I hope the rest of your countrymen are not as confused, or as poor in reasoning skills, as you are. See if you can follow these points:

    1. In America, There are people who support the right to defend themselves, namely with guns (especially when guns are used by the criminals or the criminals are overwhelmingly stronger than the victims).

    2. If guns are outlawed, criminals are the most likely people to buy them on the black market.

    3. Many of the same people who support the right to gun ownership also support freedom for the individual in general. That is mostly true of people who comment on this site. So, people on this site wouldn't make any restrictions on access to gay porn or to LSD or any other kind of drug or medication.

    4. We don't have school shootings every other week. Maybe every other year... or less. Dramatic instances do not equate to frequency of instances.

    5. Has violent crime been going up lately in your country or down? In ours, it's been going down since the 1980's.

    6. The freedom to do whatever action you want as long as it does not violate the corresponding freedoms of others is a completely separate issue from the degree to what people do for others in their free time. The former is about what the law should say about individual rights. The latter suggests what role citizens should play in civil society.

    Some people here probably do a lot of community service. Others not so much. But it's irrelevant. How about you? When's the last time you did something for the community that your government didn't force you to do?

    Oops, maybe you're just parodying the average anti-libertarian idiot. Sorry, my mistake.

  • pom@whinging.com||

    Ludwig,
    You forgot to mention that most libertarians wouldn't touch George Bush with a ten-foot pole, and most were against the Iraq war.

    Libertarians value non-coercion above every other value. On the other hand, after reading Amadeus's post, I don't know if I mind terribly that Dexter is now taking out the Eurotrash.

  • ||

    The liberals could do so much for this country if it were'nt for that damn constitution. Thats why the Supreme Court is the most important branch of government.

  • ||

    George Soros is funding the Hillary campaign, from deep under her, hoping she gets elected and Bill gets the UN Sec. General position. If and when that happens, you'll start seeing Rebecca Peters in anti-gun ads all over the US, claiming the people of the world are suffering because of the US citizens right to bear arms, which is old and is not keeping up the modern world. Once the peasents of the US cower down to that crap-e-ola, the Blade Runner mentality of a Cop and Military type on every street corner will turn this country into a moderized version of George Orwells 1984. Better start buring your guns in lead containers, in the ground now.

  • ||

    There have been a few respondents to this thread who seem to suggest that since the actual incidence of rape/murder/assault is so low, that there is no "need" to be able to defend oneself.

    An imperfect analogy would be the purchase of insurance and the wearing of seat belts. Now I haven't been in an accident in nearly ten years, and haven't made a claim in well over that. I work in risk management, and to me the legal wearing of a firearm is the only way this 145 lb guy is going to fend off, probably without firing a shot, some 200+ lb fool.

    We have stuff like insurance, seat belts, airbags, and yes, firearms, not because we need them, but because we might. The difference of course is that one is guaranteed by our Constitution...so long as the Supremes think that the 14th Amendment applies to the states on this case...

  • ||

    As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind all that America wasn't won with a registered gun. And that criminals are not stopped by talk, but by FIREARMS. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!

    YES. Barak Hussein Osama IS a liat. But what politician isn't?

  • ||

    When you say, DEMOCRAT, you say, GUN COTROL! Now that "FAT TEDDY" is pulling Obama's strings, you'll definetly see more retoric about having to have more gun cotrol!

  • ||

    Obama is bad. Hillary is worse.

    Me, as a Republican, I'm dismayed that all we've got is McCain trying to match the Democrats in rhetoric.

  • Clayton E. Cramer||

    I notice a few people commenting here who think that it's somehow silly or offensive to point out that racism is a core value of gun control. I think someone else may have already posted a link to this Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy paper by me a few years ago. If not, go read it. I'm not the only historian who has written about the racist roots of gun control.

    My recent book Armed America (Nelson Current, 2007) devotes part of a chapter to a discussion of Colonial gun control laws--which interestingly enough, generally appear the same year, or within a year or two, of these colonies taking the vote away from free blacks. (If you didn't know that free blacks could vote in Virginia, South Carolina, and Maryland in the Colonial period--well, you'll learn a bit from reading my book. A free black man was actually elected to the Maryland legislature in the 1640s.)

    The racist history of gun control isn't just long, long ago, or limited to the South. The direct ancestor of California's current concealed weapon permit law was passed in 1923 as part of a package that, as the man who persuaded the governor to sign it admitted was to disarm Chinese and Hispanics. A few years back, even a liberal member of the state legislature, Steve Peace, wrote a report California's discretionary concealed weapon permit system, and admitted that those at highest risk of criminal attack--black females--were among the least likely to get permits. My own analysis of permit issuance by county revealed a strong negative correlation between permit issuance and the black percentage of the county. As the black percentage of a county increases, the percentage of the population able to get a permit fell--quite dramatically. Yet the counties where more than 1% of the population had a concealed carry permit had almost no crime. I won't claim that the widespread issuance of permits makes the crime rate lower--but it does show that widespread issuance of permits isn't the disaster that some people want to believe.

    Here's an ugly truth: violent crime in America is disproportionately done by blacks, to blacks. It is quite common for blacks to be 45-50% of those arrested for murder--even though they are about 11% of the population. The victims are also usually black; about 9/10ths of all murders are within race.

    Why? There are a lot of possible explanations. Blacks, on average, are several years younger than whites--and people that commit violent crimes tend to be young. Poor blacks have higher violent crime rates than poor whites--perhaps, as Brandon Centerwall's work suggests, because poor blacks live in very dense housing relative to poor whites. Perhaps poverty plays a part. And there is persuasive evidence that growing up urban increases rates of psychosis, which may play some part in this as well. It is devilishly difficult to unravel these complex multivariate relationships.

    What I do know is that much of the fear of crime in America is based on race--and for the reasons mentioned above, this is prejudice, but it isn't irrational prejudice. When California passed the 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, the proximate cause was the Stockton schoolyard slaughter by Patrick Purdy, a mentally ill prostitute with a long criminal history--and a government check that helped him buy guns. (Social Security disability.) But the reason the bill was sitting in the legislature was because of Oakland and Los Angeles gang members. I think it was no coincidence that most of the guns targeted had black stocks. It was easier to focus on the guns, than for liberals to confront what they were really afraid of, or to try and solve the severe social problems that made South Central Los Angeles into a no-go zone.

  • Clayton E. Cramer||

    Obama is bad. Hillary is worse.

    Me, as a Republican, I'm dismayed that all we've got is McCain trying to match the Democrats in rhetoric.

    On gun control? I'm not keen on McCain with respect to immigration and freedom of speech, but we could do worse on gun control.

    McCain voted against renewal of the federal assault weapon ban (which was courageous for someone who loves the liberal news media limelight as much as he does), against the bill to prevent "negligent marketing" suits against gun makers, and for an attempt to ban private sales of guns at gun shows. This isn't a great combination, but far better than Clinton or Obama.

  • Clayton E. Cramer||

    The gun lobby has lowered their sights (heh) to shall-issue concealed carry laws for the same reason that the gun control lobby has lowered theirs to background checks for mentally ill people; because there has been a rough consensus worked out among a big chunk of the center that widespread public ownership of guns is reality, that broad efforts to disarm ordinary people buying ordinary guns (the DC ban on all handguns, for exampale) is both useless and overly-intrusive, and that most of the problem with gun violence is the result of dangerous criminals or mentally ill people, so that gun control efforts should be aimed at keeping guns out of their hands in particular.

    Sorry, but I can't see shall issue as "lowering" their sights. This was a pretty dramatic change--requiring police chiefs, sheriffs, and judges, to stop abusing their discretionary authority. I will confess that back when Florida adopted their non-discretionary permit law (the second in the nation--Washington State was first in 1961), I had some serious misgivings about how well it would work. I knew that the discretionary permit system was being abused, since respectable, sensible people like me couldn't get a permit--but I wasn't so sure that it would work to have such clear-cut standards for issuance.

    And I am pleased to report that it worked, because the average person who wants a concealed carry permit, and can pass the requirements, is actually pretty darn sensible. See this Tennessee Law Review article by Dave Kopel and myself about the subject.

    The average American isn't crazy, nor bloodthirsty. Driving an automobile isn't so different from carrying a gun--except that it is a lot easier to make a serious judgment error with a car. The overwhelming majority of people that criminally misuse guns are not normal. FBI studies in the 1970s confirm what many criminologists believe to be the case today: about 40% of those arrested for murder have previous felony convictions. About 1/3 of murders are done by minors. In 1991, about 5% of all U.S. murders were done by mental patients who had stopped taking their medication (making this group probably 5-10x disproportionate to their numbers). Deinstitutionalization played a major role in the dramatic rise in murder in the 1970s and 1980s, and many of the mass murders that you know about involved people who, in 1960, would almost certainly have been hospitalized before they became a national headline.

  • ||

    "CAN WE TALK"?

    Gun control laws do not favor good race relations. Quite the contrary. The effects and burdens of gun control ( gun restriction) laws are suffered almost entirely by law abiding,responsible, white Americans who,for the mostpart don't need gun laws to prevent violence that they arn't doing. More outrageously is the arbitrary and nonsensical content and focus of anti gun legislation that renders hobyists and hunters uncertain as to their legal status and in potential legal jeopardy. Conversely,a disproportionate amount of violence in the US is concentrated in predominately non white,drug and gang infested urban areas where police forces generally exist in a perpetual and almost institutionalized equilibrium with criminals.
    These "inconvenient truths" are a corrosive factor in race relations. We,the law abiding gun owners of America are being squeezed in a legislative vise because of violent tendencies that other demographic groups can't seem to control.
    Not good! If the anti gun agendas of either of the Democrats (or McCain?) become law, effectiveness of the restrictions will be measurable by the number of coroners reports attributing homicidal deaths to slit throats and beheadings. If I wern't a gun owner already, I'd become one fast.

  • ||

    Clayton Cramer, thanks for exposing the Bellisiles fraud. Now, that guy seems to have disappeared from the face of the Earth.
    Also, you have a lot of stones in the pouch to excoriate Obama, the way you did. WHY THEN, did Idaho Dems give him over 70% of their vote? Obama must have the oiliest of tongues of anyone, is all can say.

    P.S.- Does anyone seriously believe that if Obama somehow gets in, all the shootings will miraculously stop?

  • ||

    I not only know Obama is anti-gun but I personally believe him to be a Muslim and from the estimates I have heard there are around 1.2 billion of them in the world with about 10% of those (120,000,000) who are willing to kill Americans or westerners of any nationality. Who are those 120,000,000 Muslims!

  • ||

    People need to remember that if guns had been outlawed in the late 1700's, there would have been NO revolution and what is now the U.S. would have remained a colony of England.

    And with Billary likely to be President next year - - - - -

  • ||

    Obama,Clinton,McCain, All are liars when they say they say that they support the 2nd amendment. Their voting record speaks for itself. Remember the 1994 Assault weapons ban? go see who voted for it? and who voted against it. On a live broadcast of the DNC 2004. Hillary Clinton. Tried to tell everyone there, "We are going to protect our 2nd amendment rights by re-instating the Assault weapons ban"! Who is she trying to fool? Obama is just as much of a liar as she is!

  • ||

    Anyone who does not 100% support unconditional, unencumbered rights of the average citizen (not special classes or professions) the right to defend themselves in their home and on their person against the predations of criminals and tyrants has no place in public office, period. Obama has publicly stated that he is against personal concealed carry and that is intolerable.

  • Clayton E. Cramer||

    :WHY THEN, did Idaho Dems give him over 70% of their vote? Obama must have the oiliest of tongues of anyone, is all can say."

    The caucuses tend to attract the most liberal Idaho Democrats, many of whom might not support gun bans, but don't let that get in the way of more important concerns, such as gay marriage and punishing people who don't want to photograph same-sex committment ceremonies (such as the woman now having to defend her decision to refuse such a job before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission).

  • ||

    Hello Ludwig,

    Just a quick take on things - as things progress quickly on the page I this is a bit out of date now but nevertheless an answer:

    > Well, Amadeus, I hope the rest of your countrymen are not as confused, or as poor in reasoning skills, as you are. See if you can follow these points:

    I'll skip personal attacks here, as I unfortunately did some myself and get back to the issues.

    > 1. In America, There are people who support the right to defend themselves, namely with guns (especially when guns are used by the criminals or the criminals are overwhelmingly stronger than the victims).

    I see your point and fully support it - nobody should have to endure a crime, but guns are often bad for *both* the attacker and the victim. Problem is that when people get that flight-or-fight reaction and are excited there is little hindrance to just bending your index finger, leaving you with the haunts and responsibility of having killed someone (rightful or not) for your whole life. Failure to do so on the other hand (especially by many women) often leaves the attacker with a possibly lethal weapon - or the hard question why they didn't self-defend themselves in the first place, allowing it to happen.
    I know for myself that I could kill, but I don't know if I could walk upright after the act. But self-defense is okay nevertheless. In certain parts of Berlin and Düsseldorf I have pepper spray in my pocket that knocks a guy (even with a gun) off his feet in 2 seconds. This is fully legal here in an act of self-defense and I don't have to face a life as a murderer.

    > 2. If guns are outlawed, criminals are the most likely people to buy them on the black market.

    If guns are *not* outlawed, how many more (would-be) criminals have access? Btw: You could exchange the word guns with drugs in that sentence and it stays true. So you say you're a libertarian (a term that I would also call myself), though many in the forum are republicans. I'm interested where you're standing on that issue and if it is okay for you that the US have by far the highest incarceration rate in the world (six times than in average Europe), more than half of the inmates being non-violent drug offenders that just took the liberty of doing stuff that's against the moral of certain people while doing no harm to anyone...

    > 3. Many of the same people who support the right to gun ownership also support freedom for the individual in general. That is mostly true of people who comment on this site. So, people on this site wouldn't make any restrictions on access to gay porn or to LSD or any other kind of drug or medication.

    I didn't want to offend those - sorry for using an overblown stereotype.

    > 4. We don't have school shootings every other week. Maybe every other year... or less. Dramatic instances do not equate to frequency of instances.

    I would agree on that. I was overstating and hope you apologize for that.

    > 5. Has violent crime been going up lately in your country or down? In ours, it's been going down since the 1980's.

    It's also been going down (yep, I looked it up). So let's compare some real numbers. I know it's not exactly the same, but I see a strong correlation between violent crime and murder rate and I just have access to international statistics for the latter: Six murders per 100,000 inhabitants in the US and one in Germany. By the way - what exactly did you want to prove with that point?

    > 6. The freedom to do whatever action you want as long as it does not violate the corresponding freedoms of others is a completely separate issue from the degree to what people do for others in their free time. The former is about what the law should say about individual rights. The latter suggests what role citizens should play in civil society.

    I agree with you on both points and also think that the government shouldn't interfere with anything you do as long as you're not harming, disrespecting or endangering anyone else (a problem that I have with most republican standpoints). My problem with firearms is that they were *designed* from the ground up to kill and harm, as that's their only purpose. So even if you don't intend this, there are many accidents and even judicially approved killings/injuries that lead to depression and suicide in victims turned attacker. Firearms are no good for no one. And even if I'm really fairly liberal, there are good reasons why parents don't give knives to 3-year-olds and the blueprints of nuclear weapons are top secret. I think Gun Control is a complicated issue, but in the end it's a better choice for everyone. But if you have better arguments, I'm totally able to change my opinion.

    > Some people here probably do a lot of community service. Others not so much. But it's irrelevant. How about you? When's the last time you did something for the community that your government didn't force you to do?

    I'm an active church musician and have a license for youth group leading. And you?

    > Oops, maybe you're just parodying the average anti-libertarian idiot. Sorry, my mistake.

    Well, I'm an anti-anti-libertarian mensan and unfortunately I was parodying 62,040,610 Americans that made George Bush's second term become possible - after seeing the consequences of the first one happen...

    Yours,

    Amadeus

  • Untermensch||

    A bit late on this thread, but I'm wondering if, after the Northern Illinois University shootings today (February 15) Fluffy and others would argue that the certain calls for gun control are based on racism. The shooter was white, and people are really afraid. I am not saying gun control is the answer, but I can see how someone, with no racist intent or motivation, could think that it is...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement