Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama Better Than Clinton on Guns?
Tim Cavanaugh goes spelunking through the congressional record, and finds a clarifying up-or-down moment.
Jacob Sullum took a more skeptical view of Obama's 2nd Amendment views earlier this week.
|3.1.08 @ 6:06PM|#
This was obviously a false flag vote. Obama knew he was going to
run for president, figured he'd need 2nd Amendment supporters to
win in November so voted against his beliefs to disguise the fact
that he's a gun-grabbing leftist. Knowing that the amendment would
pass, with or without his vote, he made the cynical, calculated,
machiavellian decision to vote yea. Any experienced observer of
politics can see this as nothing but a self-serving vote, part oif
a well contrived plan to advance Obama's electability in an
egomaniacal lust for power.
Yeah, that's all nonsense, but somebody, somewhere, will make that
argument. Hillary's vote should rightly be held against her.
|3.1.08 @ 6:33PM|#
galthran,
McCain should choose Billary for his running mate. They are old
farts of a feather. I'd like to see how McCain voted too.
It is no surprise to most of us, but Billary is about as opposite
as an Earthling could be from Reasoidism. She's beyond Bizarro
Reasonoid.
|3.1.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Obama voted to not allow confiscation of guns as long as it was
not otherwise prohibited...? Wow what a liberty loving position.
Please raise your hand if that is what you think the 2nd is
about.
When grasping at straws, I thought the idea was to have something
with at least a minimum of substance in hand.
In the big picture re the 2nd and Obama, this particular vote may
only be marginally more helpful than a handful of powder smoke...
or congressional efficacy... but I repeat myself.
However, (another straw?) one of the comments on the LA Times site
had this to say:(click on clarifying
up-or-down moment link above)
Obama has actually taught constitutional law and has stated that the 2nd Amendment applys to individuals, not just militias.
Posted by: Michael Porter | March 01, 2008 at 05:56 AM
And, McCain voted the same as Obama "yea".
|3.1.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Eating 10 Big Macs every day is better for your cholesterol
level than eating 10 Double Quarter Pounders every day.
ie, what Cesar said.
Ali|3.1.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Chris-
Take the options you're given and be thankful. Please, be a good
and obedient citizen. Please.
|3.1.08 @ 7:41PM|#
After the recent NIU shooting, Obama was quoted as saying the 2nd amendment was an *individual* right. I'm not sure of the context, but given the rawness of the recent event is seems fairly forward. Or maybe not - but there it is.
|3.1.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Wow, if you think we have nuts posting on this site, read a few of the ones on that site.
Geotpf|3.1.08 @ 7:46PM|#
There will be a deciding moment, gun control-wise, in Obama's
presidential term. (I'm basically assuming Obama wins here and the
Democrats gain seats in both the House and Senate.)
The assault weapons ban will be passed again by the Democratic
House and Senate. The margin will be filibuster-proof in the Senate
but not veto-proof in either house of Congress.
I think Obama will take Feingold's lead and veto it. Now, I have no
proof of this, but I hope I'm right. That will shut up the NRA
types and help him win re-election, so it's the right thing to do
politically, and since the assault weapons ban is so incredibily
stupid, it's obviously the right policy decision as well.
We shall see.
|3.1.08 @ 7:51PM|#
pigwiggle,
He said it was an individual right subject to "reasonable"
restrictions. I agree, in principle, but I'm sure the Brady
Campaign nutjobs would be happy with that statement as well, so
long as they get to define "reasonable".
|3.1.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Ali,
As you are new to American schlocky stuff, here is a link to
the answer you seek.
shecky|3.1.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Every President will be in favor of
"reasonable" gun control. However, I don't see a Clinton-style
assault weapons ban being viable again, barring any relevant acts
of terror occurring during the interim.
OK, so Obama comes out slightly ahead of Hillary on guns. Good on
him. I guess some is better than none.
|3.1.08 @ 8:12PM|#
ali, sorry, i was just trying to clumsily say that trying to
parse this issue with these two candidates in the way tim (and
others) are trying to is pointless.
each is going to do about the same thing once they reach the white
house, and that will *not* be in the direction of citizens' rights.
trying to pin down specifics before the election is merely a way to
fill column inches, not actual useful and informative observation
and analysis.
|3.1.08 @ 8:20PM|#
He said it was an individual right subject to "reasonable"
restrictions.
Unfortunately, he supports the complete handgun ban in D.C. and
other extreme local restrictions as "reasonable."
Ali|3.1.08 @ 8:40PM|#
edna- Yeah, I agree. I think part of it is that once people are in charge, they realize how many constraints and how difficult it is to get through with their promises. Here I am assuming that (a) politicians are consciously sincere when they make campaign promises, and (b) they assume that we are not idiots. Usually both, but at least one, seem not to be the case.
|3.1.08 @ 8:43PM|#
Here I am assuming that (a) politicians are consciously
sincere when they make campaign promises, and (b) they assume that
we are not idiots.
hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! you just *slay* me!!!!!
|3.1.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Hillarious and O-bomb-a both get F ratings from Gun Owners of America. I think the real purpose of this debate is to distract attention from the fact that John McCain also gets a big F from GOA. REASON is definitely promoting the neo-con agenda now.
sine|3.1.08 @ 9:01PM|#
Tim, you know if you come back to blogging at Hit and Run you could have written that same post, except you wouldn't have had to throw in that disclaimer about an "old tension here between individual rights and the need to establish (by force) police supremacy..." at the end.
|3.1.08 @ 9:02PM|#
And Chris Baker gets an A+ from the Non Sequitur Association for
that last comment...
Seriously, any criticism of HRC and BO = promoting McCain?
|3.1.08 @ 9:26PM|#
Seriously, any criticism of HRC and BO = promoting McCain?
Chris, you should expect more of that non-logic as election day
nears.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.1.08 @ 9:47PM|#
Hey Cesar, leave Chris alone! We mathematicians have to stick
together.
And once again, a famous Jack Handey quote:
"and also I'm drunk."
I'm going to the anti-depressant thread - hopefully they'll have
some magic e-pills that will undo the not gettin' laid. See y'all
later.
PS: Dondero, I wouldn't be able to communicate with such raw
honesty, even while drunk, if I posted my handle, my credit card
information, and my loved ones' addresses and vulnerabilities as
you'd like to see.
|3.1.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Well, I'm assuming that particular non-logic is coming from the
Paulinista* perspective, so I don't know how it's going to change
as an election not involving Dr Paul approaches.
* By this I mean not people like myself who merely donated,
phonebanked, and voted for Ron Paul, but the personality cultists
who think that he can do no wrong and that he would have won the
nomination had it not been for the Vast Cosmotarian Conspiracy.
|3.1.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Meh, I don't mind getting ribbed once in a while.
We mathematicians can take comfort in the fact that no matter what
happens to our pathetic physical selves, we can rest assured that
Stokes' Theorem will always be true.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.1.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Oh yeah, dude, I kept a class over for almost ten minutes the
last day before spring break (i.e yesterday) because I got excited
about the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
I mean, without that, my students can't factor shit.
|3.1.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Ha ha ha!
You can't factor with the FToA, it's an existence theorem, not a
construction theorem. Very funny!
(It's too bad there's no "nerdy math laugh" emoticon)
|3.1.08 @ 10:19PM|#
I can barely do simple multiplication tables. But I can always
plug it into a calculator.
Good luck getting a machine to tell you about the geopolitical
implications of the Second Balkan War.
|3.1.08 @ 10:20PM|#
I'm kidding, of course, in the above post. I respect hard science people. Especially during tax season.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.1.08 @ 10:40PM|#
Chris,
Fair enough. My students can't factor shit regardless. But they
don't know whether it's even possible until I take a full hour to
prove the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic for them. Afterward I
told them that next time they'd have to let me know I was going
over. One of them said they were getting ten free minutes of math.
Maybe just a joke, but pretty flattering nonetheless.
Cesar,
You wouldn't respect this hard science guy (inaccurate for a
mathematician but close enough, I guess) if you knew how much money
I'd wasted on strippers in my life.
ghost of Fourier|3.1.08 @ 10:42PM|#
I can barely do simple multiplication tables. But I can
always plug it into a calculator.
Good luck getting a machine to tell you about the geopolitical
implications of the Second Balkan War.
I'm kidding, of course, in the above post. I respect hard science
people. Especially during tax season.
Well, that sounds like a back-handed (if not entirely
misunderstood) compliment if I've ever heard one. There is a big
difference between calculating and mathematics. Yes anyone can
punch numbers into a calculator, but that's about as far from
mathematics as scanning prices at the checkout counter is from
economics. A machine is no more capable of doing actual mathematics
than it is capable of doing history.
|3.1.08 @ 10:58PM|#
A machine is no more capable of doing actual mathematics than it is capable of doing history.
I realize that fully. I was being snarky.
|3.2.08 @ 12:01AM|#
NERD FIGHT!!!! Amazingly, Star Trek vs. Star Wars hasn't come up
yet.
Seriously, though, a big difference, Cesar, is that if you plug 6x9
into a calculator, you always get the correct answer. Asking a
political historian about the Second Balkan War carries no
guarantee that his or her answer will even agree with that of
another political historian, much less that it will be right.
alan|3.2.08 @ 12:06AM|#
You wouldn't respect this hard science guy (inaccurate for a
mathematician but close enough, I guess) if you knew how much money
I'd wasted on strippers in my life.
It is possible to waste money on strippers, but not time. But still
when you consider the monetary exchange of dealing with the
stripper as putting your money up front as opposed to the finances
that go into a relationship with a girlfriend or spouse as a long
term loan at a steep rate of interest where the thing that is
purchased reduces a slight amount in value with each use (remember
Vince Vaughn in Old School, 'One pussy for the rest of your life'),
the stripper in comparison is a bargain.
|3.2.08 @ 1:17AM|#
Spent most of my money on strippers, booze and gambling - the
rest I just wasted.
More on point. Hey, Barak's from Chicago. Gotta believe in guns,
man.
robc|3.2.08 @ 2:02AM|#
Seriously, though, a big difference, Cesar, is that if you
plug 6x9 into a calculator, you always get the correct
answer.
42?
Only awake and posting right now because "another isolated
incident" is occurring in my front yard right now and the sirens
woke me up and the flashing lights in the bedroom windows kept me
awake.
|3.2.08 @ 7:21AM|#
hey robc, make sure you aim for the head when they come busting through your door.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.2.08 @ 11:04AM|#
robc:
Seriously, though, a big difference, Cesar, is that if you plug 6x9 into a calculator, you always get the correct answer.
42?
No, that's not a calculator, that's a bag of scrabble tiles.
Chris, there's your nerd fight, right there.
robc|3.2.08 @ 11:04AM|#
edna,
I figured they werent coming into my place since they used the
sirens and lights to make sure I was awake enough to target
properly.
My street intersects a main highway, looks like some dudes being
chased decided to use my street to shake the cops. Choosing the
street with 3 speed bumps in 2 blocks was probably a bad idea. Not
sure why they pulled into my yard to give up though. About 3 EST
they finally towed away the car and left.
robc|3.2.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Someone,
there's your nerd fight, right there.
I was fed a straight line I couldnt pass up.
|3.2.08 @ 11:34AM|#
A machine is no more capable of doing actual mathematics than it is capable of doing history.
I dunno, I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're just
machines made of meat. Up yours, dualists.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.2.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Understood. It was one of my favorite parts of the books, too.
|3.2.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Sort of back to topic - anybody seen this: Student group pushes for right to carry concealed weapons on campus
Click \'n\' Learn|3.2.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Great job by Cavanaugh and the LAT! I only covered this five+ weeks
ago, and it usually takes the LAT a few years (if ever) to
catch up.
Congrats & Kudos!
|3.2.08 @ 6:06PM|#
I dunno, I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're
just machines made of meat. Up yours, dualists.
Warty, your post brought a short story by Terry Bisson to mind.
Surprise, it is online in it's entirety. Go here, it's a short
short.
Robert|3.2.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Hey, I've actually seen The Crazies, lent to me by a libertarian who really appreciated it.
Michael Ejercito|3.3.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Unfortunately, he supports the complete handgun ban in D.C. and other extreme local restrictions as "reasonable."
I wonder if he would view Chicago's gun control laws as
reasonable.
In Chicago, one must register handguns, and registration forms are
not available to the public. They are available to rich
white people with connections to the Daley junta.
A white person caught with an unregistered handgun gets a
warning..and the gun back. a black person caught with an
unregistered handgun goes to jail.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245