[Honest Thread] Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’

[FeatsofClay]

In the spirit of honest debate I am asking that this thread be spared vitrol, hyperbole and asshattishness.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/

Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’
Christopher Cooper reports from Duryea, Pa., on the presidential race.

The Obama campaign talks a lot about new ideas and expanding the political map, but in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which the campaign has focused on almost exclusively since the Democratic convention, old-school issues still rise to the fore.

The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obama a curve ball.

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’



To start, for those that do not know, I was raised with firearms, own firearms, train with firearms and am qualified to teach firearms classes.

I have heard what I would have labelled fear-mongering from many on the right that liberals will take your guns. I have always dismissed it and pointed to it NOT happening even under amazingly liberal preseidents.

This sounded bad. KEeping guns out of the hands of gang-bangers how? Are we going to base restrictions on race? Age? Gender? I do not like the general smell coming off of that statement.

"Cars cause problems but are legal, booze causes problems but is legal, guns cause problems but are legal. Certain difficulties and unpleasantness must be tolerated in the protection of our liberties." Is the right answer. I don't think this was.

I am pretty damned sure I will not vote McCain. I just haven't made up my mind if I will vote for Obama yet. I feel alittle more distanced today.

[Bagpuss]

"If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it"

I think that could be a telling statement. I doubt you'll see an increase in concealed carry with him as president.

And note he mentions the sportsmen. So it's not the sporting use of guns he might legislate against. Perhaps a requirement for guns to be kept in a safe, etc. But hasn't that already been thrown out by the Supreme Court when somewhere introduced it?

[Name Lips]

I think the "The liberals are gonna take away our guns!" argument confuses him as much as it confuses me. It's just perplexing. You think that's my plan? That's why you don't want to vote for me?

Are you stupid, or just ignorant and fearful? No, I'm not going to take away your guns. That's retarded.

I honestly don't think it's on democratic politicans' radar. It's not something they're even pondering or worrying about. Liberals aren't voting FOR them because they want to take away guns. Surely conservatives aren't voting AGAINST them because they want to take away guns either.

Honest, law-abiding Americans should have their guns for sport, personal protection, and if for some reason you want to, for organizing a militia. Democrats and liberals are mostly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of children, lunatics, and criminals.

[Harry]

The NRA is distributing a "ten step agenda" that Obama is supposedly committed to. I've seen serious arguments at another forum over what is obviously a faked up document, but since it was sent folks by the NRA, they refuse to doubt it's veracity. Here, let me see if I can find it....

[Harry]

Well, that was easy enough. This is supposed to come from the NRA magazine:

01) Ban use of firearms for home defense.

02) Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.

03) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

04) Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.

05) Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

06) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition.

07) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.

08) Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.

09) Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

10) Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

[Name Lips]

Who could believe that load of bullshit? I mean, seriously believe it, to the point where they'll vote for the other guy just in case it's true.

[AZRogue]

Interesting 10 step plan from the NRA site, Harry. I'm a member but I never visit since they hardly ever say anything I'm too interested in reading (I go to actual gun sites when I'm interested in reading about guns). Those sound extreme and I'd be curious to know where they got their information.

Name Lips, you asked if someone would vote AGAINST Obama just over the issue of guns and I can honestly say that, yes, I would. But only given extreme cause (such as Obama mentioning some of those NRA talking points). Not under normal circumstances, but I know that the issue is important enough to me that given sufficient cause, it could decide my vote. We lose liberties every day and I'm loathe to surrender another one.

Frankly, I don't see how Obama plans on keeping guns out of the hands of "gang-bangers". Maybe find some way to tie in the files kept by a lot of police agencies regarding suspected gang members and background check currently issued? I don't know. It sounds vague enough to mean a host of different things. Some acceptable, even reasonable, others not. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though. I don't think it's currently a real issue. Just an issue I keep my eye on.

One thing that bugs the Hell out of me is when politicians impose restrictions on firearms based upon how they look. If someone out there shoots me with a mini-14, I'm not going to care whether he had a synthetic stock and a pistol grip on it. Unfortunately, politicians love restricting such minor things because 1. Most gun activists know it doesn't mean much, and 2. It plays well with the crowds. You could slap two identical carbines down on a table and if one had a nice walnut stock most people would assume it was for hunting and they would look at the other, more sensible, synthetic stock and think it was designed only to kill people.

Hell, I only own 2 rifles with wooden stocks to them, and my grandfather gave them to me. I tend to tinker with most of my weapons because I enjoy it. I would hate to have my weapons be reclassified just to provide a bone to a gun control lobbyist.

Obama's correct, though: it would be difficult as Hell to pass serious gun control, IMO. Annoying gun control, maybe, and that would piss me off all to Hell, but not scary gun control. It would raise a ruckus and gun enthusiasts would be telling themselves "I told you so" for years, especially considering the recent supreme court ruling.

[Name Lips]

If we want to keep criminals from getting guns, we have to look at how and why they get guns. All the gun control rules and regulations in the world won't stop an illegal shipment of submachine guns from South America going to a black market dealer in Chicago.

Politicians have a hard time differentiating between pretending to solve problems and actually solving problems. Often pretending to solve problems gets more votes and better press. Actual solutions are usually boring.

My view on gun control is similar to my view on video game copy protection. The more severe it is, the quicker the criminals will find a way around the rules leaving only law-abiding people inconvenienced by them.


But there's another line these days... how powerful of a weapon should people be allowed to buy? Surface-to-air missiles, tanks, phosphorous grenades?

What about protection? Why can we own guns but not military-grade body armor? Don't we really need the whole package if we're to maintain our ability to throw off government tyranny?

Can private businesses prohibit guns? Do their rules preempt the Constitution?

Frankly I think we should revisit the 2nd amendment to make these issues more clear.

[AZRogue]

If we want to keep criminals from getting guns, we have to look at how and why they get guns. All the gun control rules and regulations in the world won't stop an illegal shipment of submachine guns from South America going to a black market dealer in Chicago.

Politicians have a hard time differentiating between pretending to solve problems and actually solving problems. Often pretending to solve problems gets more votes and better press. Actual solutions are usually boring.

My view on gun control is similar to my view on video game copy protection. The more severe it is, the quicker the criminals will find a way around the rules leaving only law-abiding people inconvenienced by them.


But there's another line these days... how powerful of a weapon should people be allowed to buy? Surface-to-air missiles, tanks, phosphorous grenades?

What about protection? Why can we own guns but not military-grade body armor? Don't we really need the whole package if we're to maintain our ability to throw off government tyranny?

Can private businesses prohibit guns? Do their rules preempt the Constitution?

Frankly I think we should revisit the 2nd amendment to make these issues more clear.

Good points. And I agree with how politicians often solve problems. That's what makes me nervous, not the threat that they're actually going to ban firearms (which would see me in a compound somewhere planning to throw a tea party, hopeless or not).

As for which weapons we should be allowed to own, I'm fine with what we have now. A lot of gun owners don't know how to handle their own weapons safely (not really). Though I would support military grade weapons in the hands of citizens if those citizens were previously in the military, honorably discharged, and were trained in their use.

[Sobek]

I don't think he'll actively do jack with firearm control. I do think he'd be happy to sign moderate restrictions that floated across his desk, though. He'd also be likely to veto relaxing restrictions.

Really, though, firearms isn't a hot topic at the moment. If we have another Columbine, that might change. As it is, almost any discussion of "firearms control" is a goat rope.

[Dr_Avalanche]

I don't think he'll actively do jack with firearm control. I do think he'd be happy to sign moderate restrictions that floated across his desk, though. He'd also be likely to veto relaxing restrictions.

Really, though, firearms isn't a hot topic at the moment. If we have another Columbine, that might change. As it is, almost any discussion of "firearms control" is a goat rope.

I think this is about right. If I were to guess what the result would be of four years with President Obama, it would be either a) no change at all to gun laws or b) some minor restriction, like a stricter background check including a bit longer waiting time before being cleared. Anything more radical would meet resistance not only from republicans but democrats as well, and I don't know if Obama is particularly interested in this issue anyway.

[AZRogue]

I think this is about right. If I were to guess what the result would be of four years with President Obama, it would be either a) no change at all to gun laws or b) some minor restriction, like a stricter background check including a bit longer waiting time before being cleared. Anything more radical would meet resistance not only from republicans but democrats as well, and I don't know if Obama is particularly interested in this issue anyway.

Looking at things Obama has said, and interpretations from analysts, I think you're right. Which is a relief to me. I know not everyone shares my love of guns, but it IS an important issue for me and a part of my way of life since I was a child.

Even though I'm a conservative, I'm currently, as of today, leaning towards either voting for Obama OR voting for Barr (more likely). McCain CAN get my vote, but only if he can prove to me that he can stand up to his party and have his own way. I actually think that, if he can do that, he would put democrats into his cabinet.

[Utrecht]

Looking at things Obama has said, and interpretations from analysts, I think you're right. Which is a relief to me. I know not everyone shares my love of guns, but it IS an important issue for me and a part of my way of life since I was a child.

Actually there are a lot of people who share your love and consider this a defining issue - seeing anyone who would restrict them willing to mess with the rest of the consitution.

Oh, and for the record, totally OK with banning handguns and registering long guns and shot guns - I know my republican card is getting revoked....

[doc]

O'Bama will do whatever the guys that put him in office tells him to do

[obryn]

O'Bama will do whatever the guys that put him in office tells him to do
...as opposed to McCain? The reformed maverick? Who's taken a 180 on pretty much all the principles that got him to where he is today? (Like standing up to the religious right, having a moderate position on abortion, being easy on illegal immigration, confronting lobbyists, and so on?)

-O

[doc]

...as opposed to McCain? The reformed maverick? Who's taken a 180 on pretty much all the principles that got him to where he is today? (Like standing up to the religious right, having a moderate position on abortion, being easy on illegal immigration, confronting lobbyists, and so on?)

-O

since thier no one else to vote for I'm voting against Mr. Change

[Name Lips]

Eh, go ahead and vote for Mr. Same if you like things the way they are.

[AZRogue]

You don't have to be ashamed of who you vote for, Doc, EVER. But, it's still a bit early to make up your mind, IMO. You're welcome to, certainly, but I'm of the opinion that it can't hurt to listen to things and watch how everything pans out.

I'd suggest watching the debates very closely. I'm hoping for some real crunch to shake out of that party.

[FeatsofClay]

You don't have to be ashamed of who you vote for, Doc, EVER. But, it's still a bit early to make up your mind, IMO. You're welcome to, certainly, but I'm of the opinion that it can't hurt to listen to things and watch how everything pans out.

I'd suggest watching the debates very closely. I'm hoping for some real crunch to shake out of that party.

AZ points out what I consider to be an inherent weakness in the system. People are encouraged to make up their minds as early in the process as possible. Fluxing, waivering and changing are seen as weakness. Actual consideration is seen as an inability to to hold principles.

[PWD]

You don't have to be ashamed of who you vote for, Doc, EVER. But, it's still a bit early to make up your mind, IMO. You're welcome to, certainly, but I'm of the opinion that it can't hurt to listen to things and watch how everything pans out.

I'd suggest watching the debates very closely. I'm hoping for some real crunch to shake out of that party.

Something occurred to me while reading this thread, and thinking about respectful discussions and personality clashes and communication styles that sometimes compromise that.

I'd point to Doc's statements of position on political matters as perfect examples of what sends me right over the wall. They could be precision crafted to perfectly hit my hot buttons every time.

Not because I dislike doc, nor because I think he's stupid. Not because he takes different stances than me. I don't mind that at all, and in many cases I find it interesting. Perfect agreement is rather boring after all.

No, it's because I never get the feeling that his positions have anything resembling thought behind them. I really don't mean that to insult, though I'm sure it can be taken that way, it's perfectly possible that it's a combination of language and differing cultural backgrounds/assumptions that leads to a total disconnect, and just doesn't convey it to me.

I read a Doc post on why the dems are a bad choice and I hear "dey tuk er jerbs!" more or less. "Deys gonna up ur taxes!" I read these things, I look at what the republicans have been doing, and I shake my head. If we could talk man to man over a beer I'm sure things could come together more, but trying to cram meaning and intent through the pipes of the internet fails badly at least on this.

Maybe recognizing this in myself and spending some time thinking about it means something, or maybe it's just some mental masturbation, I don't know. I know in times past I would have bitten Doc's head off, so the fact I haven't is something anyhow.

[AZRogue]

Something occurred to me while reading this thread, and thinking about respectful discussions and personality clashes and communication styles that sometimes compromise that.

I'd point to Doc's statements of position on political matters as perfect examples of what sends me right over the wall. They could be precision crafted to perfectly hit my hot buttons every time.

Not because I dislike doc, nor because I think he's stupid. Not because he takes different stances than me. I don't mind that at all, and in many cases I find it interesting. Perfect agreement is rather boring after all.

No, it's because I never get the feeling that his positions have anything resembling thought behind them. I really don't mean that to insult, though I'm sure it can be taken that way, it's perfectly possible that it's a combination of language and differing cultural backgrounds/assumptions that leads to a total disconnect, and just doesn't convey it to me.

I read a Doc post on why the dems are a bad choice and I hear "dey tuk er jerbs!" more or less. "Deys gonna up ur taxes!" I read these things, I look at what the republicans have been doing, and I shake my head. If we could talk man to man over a beer I'm sure things could come together more, but trying to cram meaning and intent through the pipes of the internet fails badly at least on this.

Maybe recognizing this in myself and spending some time thinking about it means something, or maybe it's just some mental masturbation, I don't know. I know in times past I would have bitten Doc's head off, so the fact I haven't is something anyhow.

I think you're right: in person, over a beer, all problems could be solved. I'm a firm believer that they should have pitchers served during all UN Security Council meetings.

Regarding Doc's decision--and I'm not trying to single you out Doc, it's just the example at hand--I think some of the reason lies in my theory on the Democrats' disconnect with some of middle-America's values and how these Americans perceive things when they're "educated" on the issues. I started a thread HERE. (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4382)

And, once again, not trying to single you out, Doc. :)