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
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.
Barack|10.31.08 @ 3:48PM|#
I strongly oppose the second amendment. What dumb piece of shit came up with...Oh crap! The mike's on!
|10.31.08 @ 4:00PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:04PM|#
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?
|10.31.08 @ 4:06PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:09PM|#
KT-
You have to admit that both democrats and republicans are pretty
creepy, spooky unattractive slimes, no?
|10.31.08 @ 4:10PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:14PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:18PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:20PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:21PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:23PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:24PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:26PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:27PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:28PM|#
R C Dean,
He isn't yelling at his congregation, he's yelling with them.
|10.31.08 @ 4:29PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:32PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:32PM|#
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
|10.31.08 @ 4:33PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:34PM|#
John,
Maybe because the huckster white preacher often turns out to be a
pedophile?
|10.31.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Joe-
If my instincts are racist, as you have claimed, then why do I
instinctively like a guy like Rev. Wright?
economist|10.31.08 @ 4:38PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:39PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:41PM|#
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).
|10.31.08 @ 4:41PM|#
"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
|10.31.08 @ 4:42PM|#
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."
economist|10.31.08 @ 4:45PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Mike,
I don't think Jesus or God are too concerned with whether I get
rich or not.
economist|10.31.08 @ 4:48PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:50PM|#
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?
|10.31.08 @ 4:50PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:50PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:52PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:53PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 4:54PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:55PM|#
LoLing at corning, as usual.
"We're in for a cold winter, so there is no global warming."
Priceless!
economist|10.31.08 @ 4:55PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 4:59PM|#
"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|10.31.08 @ 4:59PM|#
While I hate to agree with joe, what cold winter? Where I live it's been unseasonably warm all month.
|10.31.08 @ 5:01PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:02PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:03PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Economist-
Joe and I may not share the same ideology, but we do share the same
state and its nasty n'oreasters.
economist|10.31.08 @ 5:06PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:06PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:07PM|#
"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|10.31.08 @ 5:08PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:09PM|#
"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|10.31.08 @ 5:09PM|#
John,
My point is that in those cases you're not doing anything immoral,
therefore it can't rightly be called "sinning".
Neu Mejican|10.31.08 @ 5:10PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:13PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:13PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:14PM|#
You're right NM.
I wasn't nearly sarcastic enough in my comment about the cops.
|10.31.08 @ 5:15PM|#
"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|10.31.08 @ 5:16PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:17PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:18PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:19PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:20PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:21PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:21PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:22PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:23PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:25PM|#
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!
Neu Mejican|10.31.08 @ 5:28PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:29PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:29PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:30PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:33PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:34PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:35PM|#
I would like to retract my previous comment as I had not seen Neu Mejican's 5:30 post before submitting mine.
economist|10.31.08 @ 5:37PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:40PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 5:41PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 5:46PM|#
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.
Neu Mejican|10.31.08 @ 5:57PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 6:16PM|#
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.
Neu Mejican|10.31.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Dean on gun control
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm
SIV|10.31.08 @ 7:19PM|#
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.
|10.31.08 @ 8:39PM|#
For Neu Mejican and others, here is Barack Obama's track record on gun control, as opposed to what he says about it.
|10.31.08 @ 8:50PM|#
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|11.1.08 @ 12:19PM|#
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.
|11.2.08 @ 12:28AM|#
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|11.2.08 @ 2:36AM|#
"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|11.2.08 @ 2:48AM|#
"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|11.2.08 @ 2:55AM|#
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.
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