Guns 'N' Voters: American Democracy

Gun guru and reason contributor David Kopel provides a detailed election-by-election account of what's at stake on the federal and gubernatorial level for gun rights this Tuesday in our first post-Heller national election. Especially worth reading for those who assume an Obama victory Tuesday = jackbooted thugs stealing all your weapons come January. An excerpt:

....the good news is that the gun issue is increasingly non-partisan. We can see this every day in the Senate, where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is friendlier towards the Second Amendment than was Republican Senate majority leader Howard Baker in the 1980s.

....The very worst-case scenario for the Second Amendment is -7 in the Senate, and -26 in the House. This would be a terrible outcome, but it is considerably better than the very worst-case scenario for Republicans in both houses. That the former is better than the latter reflects the National Rifle Association’s success in working with pro-gun Democrats. Obviously the more realistic scenario would be smaller losses in both houses, with perhaps a few pick-ups in the U.S. House.

There are a lot of races were pro-gun Republican incumbents are being challenged by pro-gun Democrats — no net loss for the Second Amendment. As for the races where anti-gun Republicans face anti-gun Democrats, there is a peripheral Second Amendment value in a Republican win, in that it is important for the Democrats’ margin of control to depend on pro-gun Democrats; that way, the leadership sees the issue as a crucial one.

My book on the Heller case and all the many controversies surrounding gun control, Gun Control on Trial, will be out any week now. Look for a pulse-pounding excerpt in the December reason.

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.

  • Barack||

    I strongly oppose the second amendment. What dumb piece of shit came up with...Oh crap! The mike's on!

  • ||

    Barack Obama had better do some scary-assed gun grabbing, or there are a lot of people who are going to look like the boy who cried wolf.

  • shecky||

    or there are a lot of people who are going to look like the boy who cried wolf.

    How often have folks gotten penalized for crying wolf?

  • KT||

    Oh no, A DEMOCRAT! Everyone freak out!!!

  • ||

    Barrack Obama would not doubt end gun ownership in this country if he could. But as he admitted, he can't do that. The quickest way to give the House back to the Republicans would be to go after guns. At this point the major combat operations are over and the gun grabbers have surrendered at least at the national level. All that is left is the guerilla war that Obama's appointees in DOJ, liberal judges and the big city mayors and police departments will no doubt wage.

  • ||

    Oh, no doubt.

    *rolls eyes*

  • ||

    KT-

    You have to admit that both democrats and republicans are pretty creepy, spooky unattractive slimes, no?

  • ||

    Obama's actions with regard to the 2nd Amendment speak loudly enough that I am unsurprised by the recent surge in gun and ammunition purchases.

    As to the supposedly pro-gun Democrats, I'm sure a few of them are being honest about it. However, gun rights has always been a somewhat sideline issue, and I would be unsurprised if in the process of trying to gather congressional support for one law, many of the pro-gun democrats turn out to be willing to vote along party lines and turn their back on their constituency.

  • ||

    Joe, there's more truth in John's statement than either you or I care for.

  • ||

    Joe-

    IMHO, Barack couldn't carry Reverend Jeremiah's jock in the arena of public speaking. The Rev is far more moving and impressive. Compared to Wright, Barack is BO-boring Obama.

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    Why do you have a boner for Jerry Wright?

  • ||

    Perhaps Obama wants to follow in the footsteps of his caucasian forefathers who instituted gun control as a means to allay their fears of black gun ownership.

  • ||

    Mike is right. Wright is one hell of a public speaker. Ever listen to the guy? He is fantasticlly charismatic. You don't become a millionaire protestant preacher without being able to give a great speech. He is a nut and crank, but he can give a sermon.

  • economist||

    John,
    While I don't share your optimism with respect to the state of the right to keep and bear arms (I still can't get a machine gun), I agree that Obama would be unlikely to carry out an anti-gun agenda early on. As to his attitude towards the second amendment and gun ownership, I truly think that, given his own way, all privately owned firearms would be seized. I think the police would still be allowed to carry guns, of course, because they never abuse their power.

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    No, I don't think that's Obama's intention. Don't say stupid crap like that. Obama wants gun control because he's a statist who thinks that any private citizen who keeps arms for self-defense is a dangerous nut.

  • ||

    Econmist,

    It may be that the Democrats are natural gun grabbers and just won't be able to help themselves once they are in power. If that is the case, I wish them luck holding onto the House in 2010. The Demcorats going on a gun control bender would be the biggest political gift they could give the Republicans.

  • ||

    Mike is right. Wright is one hell of a public speaker.

    He is a master of his genre, but personally, I don't much care for being yelled at. De gustibus, etc.

  • economist||

    John,
    I don't usually listen to millionaire protestant preachers. There seems to be a disconnect between the idea that the poor are God's chosen and building one's luxury home with contributions from one's parishioners. Not being an adherent of said doctrine myself, of course, I do not plan to have any qualms about building myself a luxury home, if I ever have that much cash to blow.

  • economist||

    R C Dean,
    He isn't yelling at his congregation, he's yelling with them.

  • ||

    RC,

    I have a naturally loud voice, so I am more sympathetic to the Reverand Wright style. Also, I have a real love of African American Gospel music. Also, for some reason a huckster black peacher doesn't make my skin crawl the way a huckster white one does.

  • ||

    Economist,

    I usually avoid millionaire protestent preachers myself. But after the Wright thing broke, I figured I owed it to myself to actually listen to what the guy has to say. I found that he is a crank but really charasmatic. Actually, Obama lied his ass off when he claimed that Wright had somehow "changed" and that was why he was leaving the Trinity Church. Bullshit. Wright is a nut, but he is such a strong personality I can't believe he has changed one bit in the last 20 years.

  • One Issue Voter||

    I live near Chicago. I commute to Chicago. Chicago is the safeist, most gun friendly place in the country! Barack feels so safe that he's taking his girls trick or treating in Hyde Park rather than Jennifer Hudson's Englewood. Oh yeah. Barrack Supports the "tradition" of the Second Amendment...

    Meh.

    There is only one non-negotiable Issue in politics - and that is your Right to Keep and Bear Arms... because without that, NOTHING is negotiable. After that it doesn't matter who is in charge.

    Communist or Facist, Left or Right, history doesn't lie. With no RKBA they are in charge and you kowtow or die.

    http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

  • ||

    Economist-

    I can understand your question; however, I do not have a boner for him. Let me answer as follows:

    1. I abhor Obama's jettisoning of Wright. It is not a sign of "toughness". To the contrary, it smacks of cowardly expediency, betrayal and weaselmindedness.

    2. I abhor the manner in which too many caucasians, particularly the Sean Hannity, Bob Grant, Michael Savage, Jay Severin, Michael Graham, Laura Ingraham, Mark Lavin, Rush Limbaugh, Gerry Callahan variety have attempted to portray the Rev. as the incarnation of evil itself. The guy has been smeared big time by white folks more concerned about genuflecting to the state than the truth, much less liberty.

    3. I like his preaching style.

    No, I do not support black liberation theology. I do not consider the white man to be the blue eyed devil. However, as a hard core anarcho free enterprise individualist, my loyalty is to freedom, first, not some political subdivision like the united socialist states of amerika. Thus, when Rev. Wright attacks the leviathan, what am I supposed to do? Disagree?

  • economist||

    John,
    Maybe because the huckster white preacher often turns out to be a pedophile?

  • ||

    Joe-

    If my instincts are racist, as you have claimed, then why do I instinctively like a guy like Rev. Wright?

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    Reverend Wright and his ilk only attack the Leviathan when it's implementing policies they dislike. I guarantee a doubling of income taxes to pay for an expanded welfare state wouldn't get a peep from the man.

    BTW, I actually agree that many commentators focused too much on Wright.

  • ||

    Economist-

    My 4:18 post is not my reply to your question-my reply is my 4:33 post. Yes, the 4:18 post was just me musing.

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    Concerning your question to joe:
    Maybe it means you're a self-hating white guy.
    Now, with me, it's even worse. Half the time I hate the white man for driving my ancestors off their land, and half the time I hate those damn red Indians who wouldn't get out of the way. And, unfortunately, both halves agree on drinking too much (good old Scots-Irish).

  • ||

    "John,
    Maybe because the huckster white preacher often turns out to be a pedophile?"

    Maybe so. As vile as I think Wright is, I bet he would be a fun guy to have a beer with. In contrast, could there be a worse drinking companion than that loser in Houston who preaches that following Jesus will make you rich and successful? Yeah the story of the Apostles (7 of 12 known to have been martyred) sure says wealth and success to me

  • ||

    Economist-4:38

    Yeah, I agree, you are probably right. But, when he is railing against the Levithan, then I invoke the old arabic saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

  • ||

    John-

    I see that you don't like the prosperity gospel?

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    I actually didn't think that your 4:18 post was your response. I was merely pointing out that your analysis of Obama's intentions was flawed. I really think there should be a rule about comparing certain individuals or policies to slaveowners or Southern State governments during and after Reconstruction. Of course, we could still leave open discussions about said topics, you just can't reference it when arguing about something unrelated. Similar to Godwin's rule.

  • ||

    Mike,

    I don't think Jesus or God are too concerned with whether I get rich or not.

  • economist||

    John,
    I see your point. Getting crucified, burned alive, flayed, beheaded, beaten to death, or exiled to a rock in the Meditarranean Sea to live out my days doesn't seem like a good retirement plan.

  • economist||

    John,
    I'm not ripping on you for being Christian, but how do you justify the whole reality of being wealthier than most people in the world with the various railings in the gospels against the wealthy? You know, like the part where the rich man goes to hell and all that?

  • ||

    How often have folks gotten penalized for crying wolf?

    Damn you are right...i really wanted to dig into global warming fear mongering too.

    Oh well i will just have to satisfy myself with the fact we are in for a really cold winter and their agenda is doomed to fail.

    Plus I can always make fun of joe for falling for it for years to come.

  • ||

    Economist-

    My question to Joe stems from a thread back in August in which I wondered why so many big city black mayors had been a disaster. Joe and I went at it and ultimatley he agreed that my anarcho free enterprise individualist ideology is not racist but that my instincts are.

    I am with you on native americans. I was 10 when Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee was published (1973-at least that's when I read it) and I became aware that not everbody thought Yellow Hair was a hero.

    However, I do recognize that the native americans also murdered and plundered.

  • economist||

    My claim in my last post about being wealthier than most people on earth assumes that by virtue of living in the US, one is probably wealthier than the vast majority of people in Africa, South American, and Asia.

  • ||

    Economist-

    Don't forget the black codes in the northern states.

  • ||

    Don't even get me started economist. Two thousand years of Christian tradition of this world not mattering, of shared sacrifice for a cause, of human dignity separate from worldly status and wealth and then I see that clown on TV and I want to throw something. Oh well. Like the Cardinal said to Napoleon when Napoleon vowed to destroy the Church; "how can you possibly beleive you could destroy the church when Christians have been trying for almost 2000 years and still haven't succeeded".

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    I was actually joking about the whole self-hatred thing. By the way, joe hates it when you reference things he said on previous threads.

  • ||

    LoLing at corning, as usual.

    "We're in for a cold winter, so there is no global warming."

    Priceless!

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    All right, fair enough. But I think it's fairly unlikely that a black man wants to follow in the footsteps of white people who oppressed other blacks. That doesn't mean I like his intentions any better, but it's important to be accurate in accusations.

  • economist||

    John,
    What clown are talking about? The preacher from Houston?

  • ||

    "John,
    I'm not ripping on you for being Christian, but how do you justify the whole reality of being wealthier than most people in the world with the various railings in the gospels against the wealthy? You know, like the part where the rich man goes to hell and all that?"

    Of course Jesus met lots of rich people and didn't tell every one of them to give up all of their stuff. He told that one to do so because material things were ruling his life. When money is the most important thing in your life, you are in trouble.

    As far as me being rich, I am a sinner like everyone else. The ideal really is to give all of your stuff away and live like Jesus did. Of course you saw where that got him? People ask how you can rationalize the idea of all men being naturally sinful with people's capacity for good. The answer I give is that everyone's fallen state makes it impossible not to be sinful.

    For example, in an ideal world I wouldn't lock my doors and I would give anyone anything they asked. Of course if the world were perfect, no one would ever take anything they didn't need, would never steal and would never engage in self destructive behavior. Of course we don't live in an ideal world. In our world, if I gave everything away, people would take more than they needed. My family would suffer for my actions. Even the people I gave stuff to would just use it to engage in self destructive and sinful things. My generosity would just enable them and encourage them to be lazy or steal or do drugs or whatever. So, I am stuck locking my door and not giving everything to anyone who asks it, which of course makes me a sinner just like everyone else. IN this world you just can't help it.

  • economist||

    While I hate to agree with joe, what cold winter? Where I live it's been unseasonably warm all month.

  • ||

    John, Economist-

    Pastor Joel Osteen. BTW, I do not think his wife is hot. John, you may not like this, but I find Joel to be likeable.

  • economist||

    John,
    I like to think that any valid moral code allows one to be moral even if others are not. Therefore, your idea that you are a sinner because other people aren't perfect doesn't leaves me rather unconvinced. I'm not saying your actions are wrong, just questioning your line of reasoning in choosing them.

  • economist||

    re:libertymike's post,
    Now I know who John was talking about!

  • ||

    Joe,

    The world temps dropped 0.7 degrees in 2007. It is likly to drop again this year. In addition, the level of methane in the atmosphere went up significantly and no one can figure out why. Gee, perhaps there are sources of greenhouse gases we don't fully understand.

    The sun is at its lowest level of activity since we started recording. At the same time, the glaciers in Alaska expanded for the first time since settlement. London is blanketted with the earliest snow since 1922. If things do not start to warm up in the next couple of years, the case against human caused climate change will start to become very strong.

  • ||

    Economist-

    Joe and I may not share the same ideology, but we do share the same state and its nasty n'oreasters.

  • economist||

    John, mentioning solar output doesn't really help your case. That means the cooling might just be the result of occasional fluctuations in solar output disrupting an overall warming trend due to human-produced greenhouse gases.

  • ||

    I consider it fairly likely that once the Dems come to power in the House, Senate, and White House that a renewal of the ban on so-called "assault weapons" will be brought up for a vote.

    My biggest hope is that the mainstreaming of ownership of AR15-pattern rifles has become widespread enough that people will speak out against such patent nonsense.

  • ||

    "I like to think that any valid moral code allows one to be moral even if others are not."

    Of course it does. There are lots of moral men, just not perfect men. The nature of the world puts us in situations that cause us to make choices that are immoral. War is another good one. Murder is murder. I don't think God gives you combatant immunity. What do you do when the choice is between pacifism and allowing grave injustice? From a strictly Christian perspective, get murdered or raped or sent into slavery and get your reward in the next life. But, we never do that and are all sinners.

  • economist||

    I've lived in several different parts of the country, the coldest probably being Michigan. Every time a Georgian (state, not country) bitches about cold weather, I launch into a spiel about lake winds.

  • ||

    "John, mentioning solar output doesn't really help your case. That means the cooling might just be the result of occasional fluctuations in solar output disrupting an overall warming trend due to human-produced greenhouse gases."

    But then the case gets really weak. If the sun also drives climate, then it has whiped out all of the effects of human activity in one fluxuation. That doesn't leave much room for man to affect climate.

  • economist||

    John,
    My point is that in those cases you're not doing anything immoral, therefore it can't rightly be called "sinning".

  • Neu Mejican||

    Barrack Obama would not doubt end gun ownership in this country if he could.

    The degree of disconnect from reality required to make this statement is pretty impressive, but it is quickly trumped.

    As to his attitude towards the second amendment and gun ownership, I truly think that, given his own way, all privately owned firearms would be seized. I think the police would still be allowed to carry guns, of course, because they never abuse their power.

    You guys need to lay off the Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters.

  • economist||

    Of course, back when it seemed that the sun might be helping to drive the warming trend, the left seemed firmly convinced that it couldn't possibly be true.

    I do find it telling that we don't see as much AGW rhetoric lately as we have anthropogenic "climate change" rhetoric. Hedging bets?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Some recent news for John.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081031/sc_afp/climatewarmingarcticantarctic_081031040521

    Rather than covering the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions, as previous studies have done, they focused only on the grid points where precise measurements have been taken.

    This made their climate models more accurate, and showed that observed changes in temperatures over the 20th century could only have occurred if the impact of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, and upper atmosphere ozone depletion, are taken into account.

  • economist||

    You're right NM.
    I wasn't nearly sarcastic enough in my comment about the cops.

  • ||

    "I do find it telling that we don't see as much AGW rhetoric lately as we have anthropogenic "climate change" rhetoric. Hedging bets?"

    Oh yes. I think Tom Friedman, who is a very reliable weather vain for conventional wisdom, gave away the game on one of the Suday talk shows a few weeks ago. He said that if global warming is a lie it is the most noble lie in history because it is getting us to invest in all of these great green technology. When the gig is up, that will be the excuse.

  • Neu Mejican||

    economist,

    Of course, back when it seemed that the sun might be helping to drive the warming trend, the left seemed firmly convinced that it couldn't possibly be true.

    The first factor plugged into all of the climate models is the output from the primary energy source, the sun. You have to be impressively uninformed or disingenuous to think that the sun's impact on climate was not considered by the scientists claiming that human activity is driving the current heating.

  • economist||

    Also, Neu, we were talking about what Barack Obama would do if he had the ability to do it.

    This is based on his past statements as well as the fact that statements were probably tempered by a desire to avoid saying anything politically damning.

  • ||

    Neu Mexican,

    That is one study. There are lots of others that go the other way. Since you never met a leftist myth you didn't beleive, it is not surprising you believe this one. Further, that study is talking about the poles not the earth as a whole. None of the climate models account for the recent overall drop in temperatures world wide. The day they come up with a model that can actually predict something is the day I will start taking them seriously.

  • ellipsis||

    The NRA and others have spent a ton of money demonizing Obama. But what happens when no gun legislation even reaches his desk?

    The Democrats have publicly stated that national gun control is dead. Howard Dean among them.

  • economist||

    Actually, NM, I saw several arguments that while solar activity was higher at certain points, it wasn't the chief factor. And I was mostly juxtaposing it with my devil's advocate position on John's post, since the cooling seen last year could easily be seen as entirely caused by the decrease in solar output.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Yes John,

    I am the one in this discussion that is vulnerable to the mythology of one side of the political spectrum.

    Thanks for setting me straight.

    As for the "only one study" point.
    Yes. It is only one study.
    Your "skepticism" is admirable.

    [/sarcasm]

  • economist||

    Why is it that every gun control thread ends up being about something different? I swear, the subject can be the DC gun case and at the end we'll be posting about whether to drill in ANWR.

  • economist||

    Then again, this happens with lots of other threads.

    Now that I think about it, most threads of more than 10 comments generally stray off topic.

  • ||

    The degree of disconnect from reality required to make this statement is pretty impressive, but it is quickly trumped.



    That Obama has stated that confiscation is impossible to pull off does not change the fact that he has supported practically every anti-gun piece of legislation set before him.

    On top of that, his VP pick, Joe Biden, was one of the people instrumental in the authorship of ban on so-called "assault weapons."

    While it's unlikely that they will be going door-to-door in an attempt to confiscate firearms, I would consider it highly probable that they will once again attempt to restrict various classes of firearms, namely those most useful for self defense and practical shooting competition.

  • sage||

    Don't be silly, economist.

    It's a state issue whether to drill in ANWR.

    Now back to the topic. Aerosol deoderants did not open the ozone layer. Bring 'em back!

  • economist||

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

  • Neu Mejican||

    economist,

    Why is it that every gun control thread ends up being about something different? I swear, the subject can be the DC gun case and at the end we'll be posting about whether to drill in ANWR.

    I think it may be because The Democrats have publicly stated that national gun control is dead. Howard Dean among them.

    Those who are afraid of gun control are afraid of a non-existent boogie man living in their heads...put there by consuming too many Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters...the effects of which are "Like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick."

    c.f., your own point about what Obama really wants to do regarding private gun ownership.

  • ||

    John, Economist-

    Although I may be an irreverant, anti-organized religion sort, I am not an atheist and I do respect people who I judge to be sincere in their faith while simultaneously keeping it within libertarian bounds, i.e., no crusading, no jihadding, no theocracy craving, etc.

    John, I agree that if one does not tend to one's spiritual needs it does not matter how well one tends to his material needs. Such a person has truly sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However, I do not find the pursuit and attainment of prosperity, in and of itself, to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians believe that Jesus is a loving God and that one is to live life and to enjoy it. There is no support for the proposition that the gospels teach us to strive to be in a state of suffering and misery.

    Therefore, I see Pastor Joel as a positive spiritual force. The prosperity gospel represents an embracing of the joy of life. Pastor Joel does a far better job of spreading the good news than Augustine, St. Francis, Luther, Calvin, King, Jackson or Falwell ever did.

  • economist||

    sage,
    I know, but do all threads have to end there? Then again, this meandering from their original topic does make threads more interesting. I've probably picked up more literary references here than I did in all four of my high school English classes.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Mediageek,

    I am not including you in the paranoid crowd.
    I know that you are informed on the issue.
    Your description is within the realm of possible realities. I doubt you will see gun control even at the level you describe becoming a priority for Obama.

  • economist||

    libertymike,
    I think John is bothered by the idea promoted by Pastor Joel that if you live your life according to Christian teachings you will definitely become prosperous. This has the effect of bringing lots of people down when they find themselves in a bad situation despite their faith, and might cause them to lose their faith. It might also be that "if you say your prayers, Jesus will give you a Ferrari" seems like a rather hollow message.

  • ||

    Those who are afraid of gun control are afraid of a non-existent boogie man living in their heads...put there by consuming too many Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters...the effects of which are "Like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick."



    Translation:

    Don't listen to all of those crazy gun nuts. They're all just a bunch of paranoid idiots who don't pay attention to things like I do.

  • ||

    I would like to retract my previous comment as I had not seen Neu Mejican's 5:30 post before submitting mine.

  • economist||

    I actually have no problem with proclaiming that one should enjoy life and that prosperity is a good thing. However, I do find that message incompatible with much of Biblical teaching, especially the New Testament, which tends to promote a focus on an afterlife rather than temporal life (which makes perfect sense, of course, if you start out with the assumption that there is an afterlife that is eternal).

  • economist||

    mediageek,
    Yeah, NM was lecturing John, mike, and me for our paranoia, because there is never a difference between what a politician (particularly Barack Obama) explicitly advocates and what he would do sans obstacles like the constitution, the Supreme Court, and elections.

  • economist||

    Of course Howard Dean thinks national gun control is dead, since nothing short of the complete confiscation of all privately owned firearms would be considered "gun control" by him.

  • ||

    Therein lies one of the main statements that just grates on my nerves. Obama has been hewing to a "I don't want to take anyone's guns away" line.

    But what of simply prohibiting further purchases or transfers of firearms that fall under particular categories?

    We already know from looking at his website that he supports a renewal of the lapsed '94 crime bill.

  • economist||

    Careful, mediageek, you're starting to sound paranoid!

  • Neu Mejican||

    economist,

    If you can't see the difference between Mediageek's concerns and the ones you and John stated, I can't help you.

    A reminder to the thread.
    I am a strong supporter of Gun Rights.

    Mediageek and I could probably have an argument regarding details around the margins...and would probably disagree on the important/centrality of concealed carry policy...but don't confuse me with that boogie man telling you they're coming to take your guns.

  • ellipsis||

    Does Joe Biden want to take my several m4geries? And my NM? And my SP1? Definitely.

    Does Obama? Hard to tell, but probably.

    Can they? Not a chance in hell.

    Look, I'm voting Barr, and McCain is going to lose, so why not look at the positive? There aren't enough votes to get a new AWB to the floor. Obama might do the HUD funny business again, but that doesn't affect me. Judges are the biggest problem, but the ones near retirement are already anti-gun.

    I refuse to cry myself to sleep over this election.

    And BTW, Howard Dean is fairly pro gun other than assault weapons, and Bush has taken the same stance.

  • economist||

    Really? Dean? Screaming Vermont leftist Dean?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Dean on gun control

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

  • SIV||

    President Obama can shut off the flow of foreign milsurp weapons with just a signature I believe.
    That will stop the carnage on our streets as brave police are no longer outgunned by early/mid 20th century bolt action military rifles.If one child is spared it will be worth it.

  • ||

    For Neu Mejican and others, here is Barack Obama's track record on gun control, as opposed to what he says about it.

  • ||

    Anthony Watts has a useful blog on global warming. Among other things, he tracks the solar cycle. He is the organizer of the weather surface stations project.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Kevin P.

    Thanks...of course I am already aware of Obama's record on guns.

    Notice that these are for the most part local/state level.
    Obama is consistent in his position that gun regulation is primarily a community level issue.

    His "common sense regulation" position is one that freaks some gun owners out. But it is far from the views that economist and John were attributing to him above.

    As far as I can tell his views as to federal gun control laws are:

    1) Federal law banning practice of concealed weapons.
    2) Brady bill type tracking
    3) Assault weapons/semi-automatic weapons bans

    On 1 I don't see a reason for a federal law here...even though I see open carry as the better approach.

    On 2 I have no problem with registration laws...

    On 3 I disagree. The 2nd isn't about hunting and target shooting...it is about having a populace well armed enough to oppose tyranny.

    I don't think, however, that these issues are high on his agenda.

  • ||

    I find it interesting that Dem statements about gun control being dead are not statements based on any belief in strong gun rights, but rather a purely political calculation. As such, what they are really saying is that they are just biding their time until the political climate changes.

    They are still anti-gun. They haven't given up on gun control. They are waiting, that is all.

  • Famous Mortimer||

    "No, I don't think that's Obama's intention. Don't say stupid crap like that. Obama wants gun control because he's a statist who thinks that any private citizen who keeps arms for self-defense is a dangerous nut."

    There's absolutely no rational reason to believe this. Offering your hunch as a reason, or that Obama has supported gun regulations do not qualify as rational reasons.

    In fact, they qualify as irrational reasons to make such an incredibly extreme statement.

    This thread is a wonderful example of how Libertarians often creatively fill in the gaps on subjects that don't offer the amount of damning evidence that they require for a meaningful argument.

    In other words, they're often obsessed with scary slippery slope arguments that don't logically follow.

    Oh, and economist, the man who believes that Agnosticism is the most rational approach to religion (apparently he's new to the argument), somehow thinks that the most rational interpretation of Obama's support for gun regulation is that he will, if given the chance, seize all guns.

    And you have the audacity to shit on the Republican and Democrat decision making process?

    This is similar to the slippery slope ghost stories about how an Obama presidency would result in Communism, and basically anything that involves the absolute destruction of America.

    If you want to scare people about an Obama presidency, then you're going to have to offer more intellectually viable arguments than personal hunches.

    Again, the Libertarian brain seems to break down the minute that nuance is introduced into a discussion.

    Just look at how sophisticated this conversation was before the door to the echo chamber was kicked in.

    It would have been interesting to see just how absurd it could have become if no one had interrupted what I can only describe as a lovely group prayer.

  • Famous Mortimer||

    "I find it interesting that Dem statements about gun control being dead are not statements based on any belief in strong gun rights, but rather a purely political calculation. As such, what they are really saying is that they are just biding their time until the political climate changes."

    Red Under The Bed!

    Just wait! R C Dean said so.

    What neurological malfunction makes you incapable of separating the idea of gun regulation with the outright banning of private gun ownership?

    Do you possess even a basic understanding of logic? Slippery slope claims do not automatically qualify because they sound scary.

    I, for the most part disagree with most of these regulations, but I don't believe that the issue is even remotely high priority, or in danger of ending private gun ownership.

    We already have the Republican Party established to bastardize Conservative rhetoric. You certainly don't need to marginalize the Libertarian movement anymore than it already is by adopting the same, lazy strategy.

  • Famous Mortimer||

    Also, I find it interesting that the abortion issue is of little concern to many Libertarians, yet attempting to spook people about an all out Liberal gun seize (that isn't within their power) still seems to be a hot topic within the movement.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement