McCain And Obama Battle It Out Over Supreme Court Handgun Decision
The Obama and McCain campaigns are battling it out today over the Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. handgun ban, and McCain's team moved aggressively to put Obama on defense over an issue that has long bedeviled Dems in Presidential campaigns.
In a statement just out from his campaign -- which is after the jump -- Obama supported today's decision. Obama said that despite striking down the ban it had "endorsed" the view that "crime-ravaged communities" can act to protect themselves through gun control measures.
Last year an Obama aide indicated that Obama thought the ban was Constitutional. And so the Obama campaign moved to preempt any criticism of him for flip-flopping by saying this morning that that language was an "inartful" description of his position, adding that in fact Obama hasn't taken a position on whether the D.C. gun law was at odds with the Second Amendment.
Needless to say, the GOP didn't really accept this explanation. The McCain camp quickly threw together a conference call to blast Obama for changing his position. "This is either an incredible flip flop or incredible inexperience on this issue," Senator Sam Brownback, a McCain supporter, charged on the call.
One interesting tidbit that foreshadows what's ahead: As Jonathan Martin notes, McCain's statement on the Supreme Court decision went out of its way to highlight Obama's infamous "bitter" remarks, saying:
Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
Full statements from Obama and McCain after the jump.
Obama's statement:
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
McCain's:
Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I wouldn't say they're "battling it out", exactly; Obama's explaining his position, while McCain's taking cheap shots at Obama. (Dragging the "bitter" comment out again? Are they really going to continue beating that dead horse?)
June 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, obama acted proactively in the sense that he anticipated the attack and declared the earlier statement "inartful."
as for bitter, I agree. I can't imagine it will be effective.
June 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
John McCain ought to remember that he himself in 2000 cut a commercial in favor of the Colorado ballot initiative closing the gun show loophole while he voted against a bill to close the gun show loophole one year earlier.
June 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still seen as a flip-flop by most reporters, and as we all know, they don't cover "nuance" as they should.
June 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, and yes.
June 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for more information on why perception, not the facts, should matter to the Obama campaign, please feel free to visit my diary here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/26/10355/0093/836/542244
Perception is what matters here. Right now, the McCain campaign is hitting Obama on his "flip-flops" on FISA, NAFTA, and the D.C. gun ban issue. We have to remember that the media LOVES it when a Democrat flip-flops, not when a Republican flip-flops.
June 26, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more with you.
June 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. Obama is expounding his view on the issue and definitely they were smart to explain away that earlier statement from his campaign.
The key thing in this so called dustup is Obama is not on records personally stating his position. In fact he has dodged the issue and repeatedly stated his support for individual gun rights.
Another point. I agree with Taegan Goddard at Political Wire that the gun issue is about to be laid to rest. The problem for DEMS in the past was this idea that voters feared their guns were going to be taken away...or their rights to have them. Well this ruling takes that possibility right off the table. So why would a voter in WV or KY have a reason to think a big bad DEM administration would be able to take away their rights to have a gun?
June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was pretty clear in the Audacity of Hope that he had concluded the Second Amendment protects a personal right to own guns that's not limited or qualified by the "militia" language.
June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He shoud bring that up to the media to let help stop any flip flop meme to develop on this issue.
June 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Dragging the "bitter" comment out again? Are they really going to continue beating that dead horse?)
Posted by Forsythe
Until it's in the glue pot.
June 26, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. The flip-flopper. Nothing more black and white, on-off, yes-no, either-or, with-us-or-against-us, cut and dried than Constitutional law. That's why those Supreme Court opinion are always just one or two lines long. Anyone who says a Con law professor might have had a nuanced position on this that wouldn't fit onto a bumper sticker is just being a typical slippery politician.
Not Straight Talking Hero(TM) John McCain. He says what he means and means what he says. (Um, wait is that one already taken?)
June 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that's also why the decisions are always 5-4.
June 26, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone should be very surprised by the actual decision. I am a law student, though I have little desire to delve into the nuances of the position of Justice Scalia. After reading enough of his, or others, SCOTUS opinions, I feel as if I could write it myself.
Personally, I think its a good thing we have a black letter "right" (in the SCOTUS sense) to keep and bear arms. I'm betting Obama thinks that as well.
Of course, this is yet another SCOTUS 5-4 decision. J. Kennedy is making quite a name for himself as being a "decider."
As for the campaign, the gun nuts will utilize the "we only have a slender margin" argument for electing John McCain. Methinks that same kind of argument is available for Obama on the issue of abortion.
So, they cancel out.
Personally, I think it is very fortuitous that this kind of hankering back and forth and subtle "adjustments" of positions this earrly is good for th candidates. Nobody outside of us and the Beltway are paying all that much attention to the campaign. And, if they are, well they're positions on who they are going to vote for are very well defined.
So, as usual, this just more fodder for the campaigns and media time, with little real effect on the electorate.
I'm happy I can go out and buy a glock here in DC today. Well, then again, I don't think there are any gun shops around these parts, and my car is tidied up in a garage. Cheerio!
June 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, no Glock, the DC mayor still said that while the ban on hand guns is lifted, automatic and semi-auto pistols are still illegal in the city. You'll have to get a nice Taurus or a good ole Smith & Wesson.
June 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also forgot to say that I'm a poor student and can't afford one anyway. Until Bush signs the GI Bill... :)
June 26, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you have an orifice where you can point that glock sarge.
June 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather the back-and-forth occur now, rather than after August, or, in October.
But the fact that nobody outside of political junkies and the Beltway are paying attention to this is irrelevant. I'd argue that the themes about each candidate are being created right now, when the spotlight is off, and those themes tend to harden, no matter the nature of reality.
Kerry's campaign got mired in the Swift Boats before the convention. So I hope that the Obama campaign fights back hard over this.
And I disagree about the "bitter" comment. That, I think, is going to be the gift that keeps on giving for McCain.
June 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect. the 2004 Democratic COnvention took place at the end of July. The Swift Boaters hit in early to mid August (around 7 August, I believe; I was listening to Rush for oppo when I first heard the story).
June 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. But I adhere to my main point: the time when the spotlight is off the campaign is when the story gets solidified.
June 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. I'm better convinced by statistical prove, but since this is an argument of words, I stand unconvinced. A good hypothesis, though.
June 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, from factcheck.org:
The radio ads started Auguest 5th.
June 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. That would be August.
The windsurfing picture of Kerry appeared July 17.
June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're all right!! Yay!! I love it when that happens! :)
June 26, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't missed anything. Scalia doesn't do nuance.
June 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes he does. Trust ne, when it's on a dicey issue and he doesn't have the cloak of federalism to rely upon (like in this case), he gets very nuanced. I suggest you read his Heller opinion posthaste.
June 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the most difficult issues out there, even if it isn't the most important by miles.
I used to be a strong gun control advocate, but I have finally caved on the whole thing. The damned 2d amendment resonates with a lot of people - not just right wingers. I guess I've lived too long in Texas and Colorado. The west is, by and large, heavily armed. And proud of it, and not about to let the government change it.
I hate the NRA - but the millions they've put into this issue has paid off. I know a bunch of heavily armed liberals who have the same attitude about their guns that right wingers have: "with a gun I'm a citizen; unarmed I'm a subject."
I just can't fight it any more.
June 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you. For better or worse, I think that we have lost the gun control argument. There is little to be gained by continuing to fight it on a national level. Maybe here or there in this or that city, but when Dems run on national tickets they would do well not to concentrate on this issue because it appears to be an argument that we just cannot win.
June 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree, I'd also like someone to let me know when they find an argument they're willing to fight to win....
June 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell - when we confront something that is solid and that we know we have a chance to get somewhere with it - we'll go there. This damn FISA thing isn't it. I'm sorry - FISA allows warrantless search and seizure and always did. That's the whole point of the damn statute to start with.
This is not new. What's new is that Bush totally violated the statute by ignoring it altogether. All he had to do was make some kind of showing after the fact - after he'd already authorized warrantless wire taps - to the FISA court and they would just sign off on it. But he didn't do that. He violated our rights.
But he did that by ignoring the FISA statute anyway, so what difference does a revamped FISA really make??
The only way to fix this is to hold him responsible, but that's up to Congress. And even that will not make FISA disappear. It's been on the books for quite awhile - it was there before Bush took office. The problem wasn't the goddamn statute - it was that he ignored it.
June 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be completely honest with you about this - I have always shied away from guns; I was the only criminal defense lawyer I knew in Dallas co. who did not have a gun. I was told to get one, by a judge. I didn't because my husband and I just didn't like the idea of a gun in the house.
Well, I'll tell y'all what, Taos is pretty wild - always was. There was a knife fight around the corner from me the other night. I'm here alone - I'm seriously considering getting trained, licensed and getting a gun for the first time in my life.
My dad and mom hunted; I grew up around guns and never had any interest. There was a loaded handgun in my parents' nightstand. I never was tempted to touch it. But I've slowly changed my thinking. It's America - what can I say? It's a fucking way of life.
June 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You be careful out there in the Wild West, ok?
June 26, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and isn't it nice that you have the right to own one should you decide to? My argument has always been that those guys you're worried about, the ones who have you thinking about getting a gun, they already have one whether it's legal or not. The only people affected by gun laws are law abiding citizens.
June 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A nice talking point, but just not true. The mere fact that gun laws don't eliminate the problem don't mean they have no effect on it.
But, in any case, it's a moot point in the case of the D.C. Scalia is very much right that the Constitution does take policy options that some consider socially desirable off the table.
I hope he remembers that the next time he gets a free speech or search and seizure case.
June 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So do gun control laws have an effect on crime? That is a sincere question. I know that here in MO there was much to-do a few years back about concealed carry. Folks on my side of the issue (myself included) wrote scary letters to the editor and suchlike painting a picture of a mad-max like world where school shootings would abound and gun-fights would break out in the middle of the street. The NRA & al painted an opposing picture of a world of vigilant citizen law enforcers where criminals would cower in fear than every would-be victim was their potential avenger of justice.
The reality is that the concealed carry law passed and neither side's scenario came to pass. Shootings did not go up; crime did not go down. There really has been no net effect one way or the other. This makes me wonder whether there is any actual and solid evidence to suggest that waiting periods or other such restrictions have had any actual effect. I am sure that someone has done these sorts of studies, but I have not seen them. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
June 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but I'm with Greg D, above. Gun control should be a local issue, anyway, except for issues of national security (e.g. assault weapons and machine gun bans). Crime control is generally NOT a national security issue. As has been noted numerous times, there is no Federal Criminal Code.
June 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen
June 26, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Federal criminal code? Really?
I invite your attention to Title 18, United States Code, which is entirely criminal, bars various minor misdeeds like wire/mail fraud and white slavery, espionage, bank robbery, contains the RICO statute, etc.
I'll concede that it doesn't address most historically state-specified criminal offenses, but just act a guy like John Gotti (if you can find him) whether there is a federal criminal code.
June 26, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's America...it's away of life? That is pathetic. The second amendment has been twisted and contorted much like the Iraq Authorization vote. We are not taming the frontier or defending ourselves from native Americans...killed all of them. We live in one of the worlds most advanced societies, yet we have gun laws that are most similar to dangerously unstable countries.
Justice Stevens stated that the majority opinion “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
As I said in a previous post about 30 minutes ago, the entire gun debate is an example of the American 'cocoon' mentality. Look at gun laws in any other developed, industrialized western society, places that have our nation's shared values so to speak, and you'll find the notion that any citizen can buy any sort of gun, including semi-automatic weapons just "because the want to", is viewed as wacky. It's nuts.
Even though I have never read any comparitive statistic on "access" to guns around the world I would guess that the US rates right up there with the bad-ass tribal areas of the border btwn Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of the ease that an individual can purchase a mighty powerful firearm just because they have the money.
Japan notwithstanding, few places have mass murdering sprees with anything but guns.
The idea that a "well armed society is a polite society" is, as you TinaHussein might say, fucking nonesense. Step outside the madness for awhile, e.g. outside of the United States, and see that most of the world gets along just fine in terms of individual political, social and economics rights and freedoms without the gun rights/control/lack-of-control madness.
And that there should be some black letter guarantee to a citizens right to a hand gun is rubbish.
June 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually - both sides twist the 2d amendment. It can be read more than one way, but the argument for control has to be read into it and that's just a fact.
I'm sorry you are so incensed, but the way the amendment reads it gives us the right and that's always been the way it has been interpreted.
So I really take issue with being called pathetic. I have a differing view of the thing - one that has developed over time. I have just as much right to my view and you do to yours - because the 2d amendment was not very well written if it meant something other than it says: the right of citizens to bear arms will not be... You can make the well regulated militia argument, but believe me, it's been made and made and made. And here's where we are.
The Taos police are as notorious as the PO - they never come when you call them.
I'm not going to become a target back here - and this town is not particularly law abiding, which for the most part, suits me right down to the ground. I'll deal with my life as I think I should, thank you.
June 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Abroadabroad
The constitution is being prostituted to serve gun owners. The NRA has made the statement:
"This is just the beginning."
The Second Amendment:
Scalia has interpreted "the right of the people" to mean the "right of individuals having nothing to do with any militia."
This is not interpretation it is making an entirely new law. Excuse me, weren't those right-wing judges entirely against that?
Check out the Charlie Rose interview with Scalia for a fine portrait of the man.
June 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did it for me, Tena, was realizing how many Second Amendment fanatics treat the Bill of Rights as an ala carte menu. They're rabid in their belief that the 2d Amendment protects an inalienable God-given personal right to own nuclear-weapon firing artillery pieces, and they're mostly big fans of the Third, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but they think the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth, and all of the Fifth except the Takings Clause, are a Commie plot.
That's when I finally accepted that those rights are an all or nothing deal. I couldn't find an intellectually honest way to interpret a personal right to own, if not pack, heat out of the Second Amendment, and couldn't think up an intellectually dishonest one that couldn't be used to savage the First and Eighth Amendments, if not the others.
June 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the big deal for most of us is the 2nd Ammendment is clearly stated, most of the stuff that you are talking about is based on penumbras...
June 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another correction. How is this clearly stated?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What shall not be infringed? a well regulated militia? The necessity to the security of a free State? Right of the people to keep and bear arms?
Very poorly constructed and worded with lots of ambiguity. The problem is with the final comma. Eliminate the final comment, and your definition is correct.
One other point. i always hear gun enthusiasts talk abotu how "American" it is to own a gun. That is a bunch fo BS. It's only "America' because that makes it a better talking point. It is just as "American" to be a latte sipping gun controller who lives in SF. The underlying assumption of such an argument is that the gun nut is an American, and teh gun controller is not. This is total spin and hogwash, and anyone selling that argument should not be trusted.
What is American? To dissent. To serve. To think. To work hard.
And that's about the extent of it, aside from "being greedy." I detest it when people adopt the flag as justifying their singular perception of how the world works, because that is corrupting the meaning of what it is to be American by infering an imaginary circle of exclusion around these peoples' faith structures. Harumph.
June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The only debate left to be had is whether the purpose of that right was solely for participation in ""A well regulated Militia..."
June 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've developed a grudging respect for the gun nuts. They've been a lot more effective in fighting for their rights than I have. Now, if we could just get them interested in the 4th amendment before we lose the 1st...
June 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget that amendment, we've been totally screwed. What absolutely amazes me is that almost no one cares. And all these 5-4 votes are damn scary too. This country is truly a mess. And I am so sick of McCain's daily statements bashing Obama. God, November cannot come soon enough.
June 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. The scary thing is that we live in a country who's laws are ostensibly, at the end of the day, determined by Justice Kennedy. Now THAT is a scary prospect! :)
June 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I live in DC and Sen. Obama'a support for this dangerous ruling saddens me on a personal level. As a past victim of an assault with a handgun in DC, I want to know if he is also in favor of allowing more handguns on the streets of Chicago... I'll bet not.
First FISA now the 2nd Amdt... Maybe Nader was right about the two parties...
June 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very depressing. My respect for Obama is declining every day, and I gave a lot of money to him.
June 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, above:
Go ahead and be disappointed about FISA, but if this is what he argued before, it's hard to take his position today as being a surprise.
June 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
..so you were assaulted by a law abiding citizen who had a gun at home for protection? I didn't think so...too bad you weren't allowed to legally protect yourself.
June 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the candidates settle it the old fashioned way. Like Hamilton and Burr.
June 26, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or Zell Miller and Chris Matthews...
June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain fires a weapon the way he flies a plane, good by me.
June 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vague language of the Second Amendment makes any legislation related to guns very difficult and controversial. I think we have too many guns in this country, both legal and illegal. I know very few people (outside of my law enforcement buddies) who own them but then I'm just a latte sipping, Northeast liberal. My father-in-law in New Orleans owns one. He rarely talks about it and doesn't make a big deal about it. But given his strong conservative/libertarian leanings, he's probably against most gun legislation. At the same time, though, I also don't think he's hysterical about it...I don't think he believes for a second that any politician is out to take all the guns away.
What gets me most are the nuts who want it too be easy for folks to buy semi-automatic rifles - you know, the ones they say are for "hunting" but look like they could take out an elephant. Where's the sport in that? Or the people who are against background checks. I mean, come on, if we're going to let people buy all kinds of wacky firearms, can we at least wait a few days to make sure they aren't some kind of violent goofball?
I agree that an uncomfortable number of Americans own and love their guns. But I also think the most of them are reasonable about it. And I think that guns are here to stay. I just don't see Obama losing that many votes on the gun issues, especially with crime rates nowhere near where they were when gun issues really did effect political races. And that is why I think McCain's folks through in the "bitter" bit...it's more an opportunity for them to paint Obama as an "elitist" than as an anti-gun politician.
June 26, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's about time.
I think the Democrats - well, not all of them - have smelled the bacon cooking on this issue for some time. As others have pointed out, D's have been making huge gains in regions where R's dominated for a long time and a big part of it is because they have dropped Gun Control like the dead fish it is (witness the success of Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Sen. Jon Tester and others in the Mountain West).
The national party is getting religion on this issue - the sooner the better.
Remember that none other than Gov. Howard Dean managed to land himself an endorsement by the NRA years ago - simply because he took the attitude that gun laws are a local government issue.
Good riddance DC Gun ban.
June 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to agree.....SCOTUS left room for reasonable local regulations short of a ban, and that seems pretty fair to me. Just based on a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment, the idea that an outright ban is Constitutional seems far fetched.
As far as the 4th Amendment, FISA helped destroy that long ago by creating a rubber stamp, secret court. Obama is making a political calculation much like the Jim Webbs and Jon Testers of the world have made in the recent past, namely, tacking to the right, and it has worked damn well so far.
The Democratic Party is a big tent now. Some of us may not like our new neighbors, but it sure beats another 4 years of Republicans in power.
June 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except in Chicago...
June 26, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
Of course not. The gun ban in DC has been good keeping handguns off our streets (things here are not perfect, but they are so much better than they could be).
As a result of this ruling and the fact that DC doesn't exactly have the most responsive and proactive police or government, there will simply be more opportunities for handguns to find their way into the wrong hands.
Further, no one I know in this city (where I have lived for almost 20 years) would want to own a gun. It is just not something that I want to have to do in order to survive, ya know? L
You can spout off about how I should have had a gun so I could kill the person who assaulted, but I, for one, don't want to live my life with that kind of violent worldview. Sorry, I guess I'm not man enough for the Democratic Party anymore...
June 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
...has nothing to do with manliness...my point is the bad guys will always have guns, whether there's a ban or not...that's what they do...that's why they're called the bad guys...why ban handguns only from the good guys? That's my only point.
June 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People will always break speeding limits, so we don't need them!"
Your logic is unconvincing.
June 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, my point is that the purpose of a ban on guns is to lower gun crimes. However, the only people who abide by tha ban are the ones who don't commit gun crimes.
June 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarge you of all people should know, that a firearm is not the only weapon you can use to defend yourself. Unless of course you are a CAV puke.
June 26, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The gun ban in DC has been good keeping handguns off our streets"
To parphrase Brick Top from "Snatch": In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary - come again? Really?
That 32 year gun ban came in real handy during the Crack Wars. Like a charm.
"DC doesn't exactly have the most responsive and proactive police or government."
AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh the subtlety is killing me. Let me be clear for those who don't know - DC Government is a festering hole of incompetence, laziness, inefficiency and criminal negligence.
The above statement is made all the more hilarious because your head is clearly not exploding from the cognitive dissonance generated by the latter statement's relation to the former.
And before you snark, yes, I am a former DC resident. I left for many reasons - prime among them was I didn't feel like paying out my anus every month for the honor of getting haranged, hassled or my s#!t jacked every other week.
June 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's response is one of the hazards of nuance in politics. His position is difficult to articulate in yes/no way.
Regarding the decision, it was less harmful than I thought it might have been.
That being said, I thought Breyer's dissent was the better solution.
June 26, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this ruling finally mean I can own my nuke?
I felt if I had one no one would want to fuck w/ me.
June 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on your state.
June 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
tena: be careful in Taos for those nukes hidden there in white sands....LOL
I have a permit for a gun but haven't found the step forward to buy a gun yet..I live in the Smokey Mountains and we have situations with black bears and their cubs that can get alittle wierd at times!
June 26, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
See - I've talked about this for a solid year now and still haven't done anything about it. I don't take this step lightly.
June 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you are prepared to make a mistake, don't get a gun; get a dog.
A case in point: after Hurricane Ivan, I was camping out in a destroyed house, waiting -- as if for Godot -- for the insurance adjuster. As the days and nights passed without power, water or insurance adjuster (FEMA was still AWOL) people -- not criminals -- became desperate. Looting became commonplace. After dark, neighbor challenged neighbor at the least sign of movement on what was now defended turf.
One night, I heard multiple footsteps at 3am. Because I purchased my house from a gun owner, I was able to retreat to his walk-in gun closet that, for some reason, locked from inside. (BTW, I had ridiculed this feature and had intended to tear it out in favor of installing a sauna).
The next morning I discovered that the looters had gone for food and water from the cooler, as well as the hard liquor we all turned to, in that circumstance, for relief.
My point is this: because my husband was in absentia making a living, I was alone, paranoid and frightened. Had I had a gun, I would have used it, lifetime liberal perspective be damned. But, had I used it, I might have killed or maimed someone who was there in the first place only because he, or she, wanted to survive.
Ironic fact. I'm glad I did not have a gun. But I wish I had had a dog.
June 26, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand the decision the right to bear arms is now a personal right, but like all personal rights the state can impose reasonable limits. While a blanket ban of handguns in DC might be illegal, registration and restrictions on where they can be carried will probably pass muster, especially in high crime cities. Today the NRA both won and lost. It won the principal but in doing so lost the guts of its reason for existence.
June 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes that is exactly it.
June 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the 2nd Amendment was repealed tomorrow, just how do we intend to dislodge present gun-owners from their guns? We're talking just a few more weapons than a couple of hunting rifles, most of them owned by those in the "from my cold dead hands" dept.
And when someone like W actually succeeds in, say, repealing habeas corpus, and comes to enforce it, won't a gun make it much easier to say “not today”?
The NRA just got a huge boost. Watch for concealed permits for bazookas.
While I detest guns, there is ZILCH anything can be done about the (alledged) gun problem. ZERO.
There are simply bigger fish to fry.
June 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everybody fighting the last election. Both Obama and McCain have changed positions on any number of issues. Anybody pointing a finger at the other while shouting "flip-flopper" has 4 fingers aimed right back at himself.
Maybe this would be a good time for somebody in the pundit class to point out that it is more than a little silly for either to call the other a "flip flop."
June 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luckily, the "flip-flop" label is so over-used that is really is meaningless. People have made up their minds.
June 26, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In what universe?
McCain has switched positions multiple times, on multiple issues, and that gets very little attention from MSM. Not because "flip-flopping" is no longer important, or an issue, but because McCain is their very BFF, or so it appears.
Obama, on the other hand, changes positions, and gets lambasted by McCain and his own supporters as flip-flopping.
Maybe to people reading blogs it doesn't matter any longer, but I doubt that that's the case for the wider population.
June 26, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are two related universes:
http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
Both seem to suggest people have made up their minds, and not by a ltitle. Unless you can produce photos of Rev Wright, Michelle and Condi in a three-way, these numbers are not likely to change.
I see no "lambasting" here.
June 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like looking at 538 and Election Projection as much as the next person, but they don't suggest, in June, whether people have made up their minds for November.
And the "lambasting" comment wasn't directed at this thread in particular, or you, but at the general outrage directed at Obama (now being talked about in MSM) over the FISA issue.
June 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In another year, I would agree with you.
The key to 538.com is the bell curve, and how lopsided it is towards Obama. It is related to the In-Trade graph that appears on this site with Obama consistently in the 63-64% range.
It's the difference between High Tide and a Storm Surge. One you can wait out. T'other will swamp everything in its path.
McThuselah has to alter the course of a hurricane. Not going to happen.
June 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're correct.
June 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too! I'll still be working the phones like a madman come time!
June 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very disappointing of Obama. I am for gun control and do not believe the 2nd Amendment allow personal ownership for personal defense or hunting.
The genesis of 2nd amendment is interesting. It was put for by slave states who resisted the newly proposed federal laws that all militias would be controlled by the federal government. Slave states feared disarmament and vunerability to slave rebellion. So as a compromise they agreed to allow gun ownership. that is why the militia reference.
The 2nd amendment was created as a way to stop slave rebellion. what an irony that Obama would support it.
June 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, you're disappointed with Barack? Gosh, that's first. We're all shocked to hear it.
June 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who give a fuck what a 3 time loser thinks(has John filed for divorce yet?).
You're a loser.
You're a victim.
You're insane.
June 26, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you ran a id check on me. If I catch you fucking with me, you're going to be sorry you did.
That's not his name - but I know who you're talking about.
It's none of your fucking business, but I'm the one who left - both times.
Now you get personal again, and you can have all the drama popping you can stand.
June 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're insane.
June 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly a dickhead.
June 26, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very disappointing of Obama. I am for gun control and do not believe the 2nd Amendment allows personal ownership for personal defense or hunting.
The genesis of 2nd amendment is interesting. It was put forth by slave states who resisted the newly proposed federal laws that all militias would be controlled by the federal government. Slave states feared disarmament and vulnerability to slave rebellion. So as a compromise, they all agreed to allow gun ownership. That is why there is the militia reference in the amendment.
The 2nd amendment was created as a way to stop slave rebellion. It is ironic that Obama would support it.
June 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry but the 2nd amendment was intented to prevent the federal gov't from taking up arms against the "gunless" citizens or in extention- the states. It was seem as an ultimate check and balance to a "armed" federal gov't. The slave rebellion cropped a few years beyond the 2nd amendement being adopted. You are always so full of shit fogu2!
June 26, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's your source?
Mine is the foremost constitutional scholar on the subject.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to allow states to kill slaves if they rebelled. That is a fact.
June 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you are so much of an expert, when was the 2nd amendemnt adopted?
June 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.
Should I go on? I called you on your bullshit and where is your answer? We know you are a troll supreme but I get tired of you coming off like such an ass to others like you are the expert.
June 26, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong. My source used the actual letters and notes of the Founding Fathers. You're just blathering some romantic notion from I don't know where.Here you go:
Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/supreme-court-gun-rights-heller.html
June 26, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
so glad you can cut paste an OPINION and call it FACT! You are no expert and I'm so glad I called you on it! There are many debates of historical events but what you argue here is someone's opinion based on research they or someone else did.
June 26, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still wait for your sources. These are acknowledged Constitutional scholars. But of couse you've been shown to be the idiot you are so your response is that you just don't accept them.
Typical Obamite. When facts don't line up with your opinion, just claim they're wrong.
that is often referred to as a Holocaust denier.
At least know we know what you are.
June 26, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supports the Constitutional Amendment that was enacted to kill black slaves.
It doesn't get more ironic than that.
June 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. The framers certainly were not thinking of the little rebellion against Britain they just led when they were drafting the 2nd amendment.
Your "foremost" scholar is Carl T. Bogus. Bogus is a law professor of Roger Williams School of Law, which was accredited in 1997. With all due respect to professor Bogus, I don't even think he would describe himself as a foremost scholar.
June 26, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really now. He's been a lawyer for 30 years. Written numbeous publications for Harvard, U.C. Rutgers and more. Worked at respected firms. Attended some of the best schools and is a professor.
Other than blabber unsupported nonsense you have done exactly what in the field?
You're just another kook who thinks big thoughts in their shutter darkened room.
June 26, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes. I just checked out some of your earlier comments in this thread. You are quite the frightening troll. Kudos.
Better shutter darkened than padded.
June 26, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose McCain can call it whatever he wants, but "sacred" is an ironic word to use when talking about tools that are only used to kill or wound other human beings.
June 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just watching Hardball and they had the president of the NRA on debating someone else (can't remember the other name.)
The NRA guy was saying how great the opinion was but his body language gave him away. This takes a major issue off of the table for them. They have a concrete right to guns now. It's settled. The only thing that is left for them is how far they want to push it. Can we own bazookas? Machine guns? F-16?
The NRA is talking about targeting Illinois and San Francisco laws banning handguns. But don't be surprised if these laws go away before the NRA can get to them.
The justification for the NRA's existence, if not completely eliminated, took a major hit today.
As far as supreme court justice issue goes, the specific issues relating to the recent opinions will be forgotten by November and the USSC justice question will relate to one issue: Abortion.
June 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink