Why I'm picking Hillary over Obama on the guns issue...

[Jack_DeLeon]

I personally dont like either of them on the guns issue. I'm a supporter of gun rights, not gun control.

Obama worries me more than Hillary though.

I worry about charismatic leaders who would want to take away my rights regardless of whatever else he is promising, no matter how compelling they are personally.

When a politican says he is going to take something away, no matter how they try to obfuscate it, I'll tend to believe it. When they promise to give you something, I tend to think that is less likely for whatever reason.

No matter what Obama promises I dont want to give up my rights.

What makes it worse I think is how charismatic he is, that makes me worry that it would be easier for him to sway people to follow him. I dont think a cult of personality is a good thing for our politicans to have.

I think I'll vote for Hillary, her gun control positions are less extreme than Obama, and she isnt as charasmatic as he is, people will actually question what it is she is proposing, where as they might be more inclined to rubber stamp what Obama is offering.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. While I am resently not publicly supporting either...

Although I will pick one eventually, I have some bad news for you:

The above could land you in the dock at The Hague, because you just tortured the shit out of logic. ;-)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Extend a Hand]

3. I wouldn't characterize Obama's position on gun rights as 'extreme'

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1

[Jack_DeLeon]

4. I wouldnt characterize that as Obama's position on guns...

That is just the vague statement that polticians make so that people on both sides of the issue can point and say "hey he agrees with us."

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

"Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons"

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf

"He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding
Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

Voting for Obama would be a vote against my own interests. I own so called assault weapons, I dont hunt, but I do use them to target shoot. So is he protecting my right to target shoot by wanting to ban the types of rifles I use?

Also the 2nd amendment isnt about just hunting and target shooting, its primarily about self defense. Defending the nation and defending yourself. I'm licensed by the state of Texas to carry a concealed handgun. Obama is apparently against that. Hillary atleast has not commented on that.

[krispos42]

5. This is one issue where the lockstep Republicans...

and conservative Democrats will save the Democratic party from itself. They will block any such laws from getting to Obama's or Clinton's desk.

[wtmusic]

6. Are you a supporter of background checks? Of a waiting period?

Then you're a supporter of gun control.

If you want every nut to have the right to walk down to the corner store and buy a 9mm and ammo when he/she's having a bad day, you're in the wrong party.

[Mac128]

7. President's Day Thought

And on this President's day I bring this up:

In his "Commonplace Book," Thomas Jefferson copied a passage from Cesare Beccaria, the founder of criminology, which was is as true today as it always has been:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

I'm just saying.

[wtmusic]

8. And slaves should also get 1/5 of a vote.

Both are as obsolete now as they were relevant then.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. Freedom is never obsolete...

[johnbraun]

15. Uh, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

Just because something was valid in the past doesn't mean it's automatically invalid now. Try again.

[wtmusic]

17. And just because something was valid in the past

does not mean it's valid now. Works both ways, don't it?

[ac2007]

21. We have a mechanism for that

It's called a Constitutional amendment. If enough of the States acting at the behest of their citizens feel that something is no longer valid, like the 2nd Amendment, change the Constitution. If the country feels strongly about it, it will happen.

You're right, it doesn't work both ways. It works one way. You do not legislate rights out of existence because of the fickle desires of the mob. Political winds change. Our system of government was designed to help minimize the effects of emotional and transient desires of the masses and ensure that the bedrock of our society could only be changed with careful and deliberate forethought.

Slavery was valid once and became invalid. A Constitutional amendment made sure it would stay that way.

Women couldn't vote and that became invalid. A Constitutional amendment made sure they would continue to have it.

People felt that alcohol was destroying the fabric of this nation. A Constitutional amendment banned alcohol. The People, however, had other plans and it was ultimately repealed as being unworkable and unenforceable.

Prohibition is educational. It shows you the likely outcome should the 2nd be repealed. Substitute "gun" for "moonshine" and you'll have a pretty good picture of what will happen in such an era. Underground target ranges, secret gun clubs, smuggling and home manufacturing on a scale never seen. And the one constant of that era will be the same: guns will not be eradicated.

And the same applies to legislative strategies. All they will do is drive guns underground. You'll never be able to eliminate them.

[johnbraun]

27. You're dodging. nt

[SteveM]

43. You should read Alan Dershowitz and his warning about your view...

He is no friend of guns, but says those who argue against an individual right to keep and bear arms on the basis of "obsolescence" invite others who do not like portions of the BOR to argue against them in the same manner. He also suggests that if you don't agree that the Second recognizes an "individual right," then you should repeal it. Nothing else would suffice.

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. I dont support waiting periods....

and I only somewhat support background checks, they do discourage the lazy and/or incompotent criminals, but the more motivated ones do not even deal with them they just obtain thier weapons illegally on the streets.

I would hate to see background checks become even more restrictive and time consuming simply as a backdoor way of denying certain people thier rights.

[wtmusic]

11. With a waiting period in IL six more kids would be alive today

Would it still have happened later, or would the NIU killer have sought counseling or returned to appropriate medication? We'll never know.

The vast majority of "illegal" weapons were once legal. Are you denying that making it more difficult to obtain these weapons legally will also make them less available illegally?

Like many gun advocates, you only see gun control as a means toward gun prohibition, and flatter yourself in thinking people really are that concerned about denying you your rights. Does anyone have the right to murder? Of course not, and they will be denied that right, possibly at a slight inconvenience to those who must have their target practice. Big Fucking Deal.

[ac2007]

12. There was a waiting period in IL!

Illinois has waiting periods on all guns. And mandatory owner licensing and registration. And bans on certain types of weapons. And background checks.

And none of it worked! And never will.

Making weapons difficult to obtain legally only affects the law-abiding. These laws are not "slight inconveniences". Waiting periods get people killed. State-mandated licensing that can take months to obtain get people killed. Laws that restrict law-abiding citizens to carry the means of defending themselves from crazed lunatics who don't give one flying fuck about the laws against MURDER get people killed.

How many of our hundreds of laws against the murder of innocents by any means have prevented one single murder? None of them.

Laws provide boundaries for civilized behavior and penalties for violating them. Not one law EVER prevents a crime from happening. All laws by nature are reactionary in nature. They must be in a society that respects rights. Otherwise, our society becomes a totalitarian state.

[wtmusic]

14. Your emotional plea is not backed by any statistics whatsoever.

Handguns were banned in the UK after the 1996 Dunblane massacre.

Since then:

Number of students killed in school massacres in America:

159

Number of students killed in school massacres in the UK:

0

The problem is guns.

[ac2007]

16. Statistics?

Statistics aren't necessary. We are talking about matters of law.

For your reference, direct from the Illinois State Police: http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/firearms052104.pdf. I refer you to page two of this PDF which clearly lists the mandatory waiting periods in the state for all firearms.

Thanks for playing.

[wtmusic]

18. Nice change of subject.

24 hours is not a sufficient waiting period.

Now back to the crux of the issue -- handguns kill students. Any statistics?

[ac2007]

19. I'm engaging in emotional pleas?

You're the one dancing in the blood of innocents. You are arguing that waiting periods would have stopped this. I, in turn, provided you proof that there are, in fact, the very waiting periods you claim would have prevented NIU in place in the gun-free paradise of Illinois.

The shooter in question obeyed all the laws in Illinois and did wait both 24 hours (for his shotgun) and 72 hours (for his handgun) prior to going on his killing spree. So clearly the waiting periods you think so highly of didn't do a damn bit of good.

So, what do you think should be an appropriate waiting period? 7 days? 8 days? 10 days? 30 days? What mythical number will act as a sufficient deterrent to someone bent on committing such an atrocity and willing to plan for it? At Virginia Tech, the killer planned his acts around the mandatory 30 day "one gun a month" law in the State of Virginia so in that case, not even the legal 30 day waiting period was sufficient.

You are arguing legal matters here, not statistics. There is no proof that waiting periods serve to prevent crime. Virginia Tech and the State of Illinois are glowing proof of that. With sufficient determination, the unbalanced and deranged will find a way.

[wtmusic]

20. The waiting periods I think so highly of?

You're not even close. IMO 6 months would be appropriate to quell all but the most obstinate.

Now back to the UK...why do you think there have been no school massacres there since handguns were banned?

[ac2007]

22. Because the government rounded them all up.

Without compensation to their owners. And did the same a few years later for all long guns except for a handful of bolt action rifles and shotguns which require annual certificates by the Government/police to retain possession of.

And the UK still has gun crime.

The fact of the matter is school massacres are incredibly rare. They only seem common due to the disproportionate level of media coverage provided to them. And the fact that the perpetrator knows he will have defenseless victims which he uses to further "glorify" himself in his actions. Which the media laps up and sprays out for all the world to see.

Not a fucking peep from them though when armed students or teachers stop such things before they gain traction.

What would have stopped the NIU shooter from buying a gun from a crack dealer for cash and doing the same thing? Not a thing. You think the possession of an illegal gun matters when you're bent on mass murder?

Yes, most illegal guns started life as legal guns. How they become illegal is interesting. The majority are stolen and the bulk of the rest are obtained through illegal straw purchases in violation of State and Federal laws. Yet prosecution of straw purchasers are virtually non-existent. It just isn't sexy and glamorous.

Most rights advocates advocate enforcement of the laws we already have and bringing databases up-to-date. Not piling on more onerous and feel good laws that will do nothing to prevent or stop the next NIU or Virginia Tech.

Illinois, by the way, is ranked in the top ten most strict gun control states in the country by the Brady Campaign. By those standards, it should a safe, gun crime free place. Funny how that doesn't seem to be the case?

[wtmusic]

25. Arming students and teachers is an answer?

Tell me you are joking. And I would love to see any links you can provide to "rights advocates" (the NRA?) in support of the ATF or existing gun control enforcement.

[johnbraun]

28. No one said anything about arming students and teachers.

They're not handing out Glock 19s at the door. If the teacher or student has already passed the *very very strict* FEDERAL background check to carry a firearm, don't illogically prohibit them from doing so.

[EricTeri]

24. Do you feel one should have to wait 6 months...

...before exercising his right to free speech? Perhaps we'll put a 6 month waiting period on any political speech or commentary - you know, to make sure the facts are straight and people aren't reacting irresponsibly. You'll support that, right?

[wtmusic]

26. Speech never killed anyone. nt

[ac2007]

29. Really?

News media prints a false article about how Korans are flushed down a toilet or someone supports the publishing of cartoons considered offensive by some Muslims as acts of free speech. Riots ensure which get people killed and citizens are murdered in the street in cold blood for holding such views.

Free speech can most definitely kill. Ever heard of inciting a riot?

Words can be weapons too. All you need is a receptive audience willing to hear and act upon them.

[wtmusic]

32. Yes, really.

People may react violently to speech. Sometimes they even use guns when they react violently to speech.

Speech never killed anyone.

[EricTeri]

33. If you're going to use that logic about speech...

then logically you must accept similar logic about weapons.

Guns have never killed anyone. Sometimes people use them incorrectly and violently and kill people, but the guns themselves do not do it.

The fact that guns can be used to cause harm is irrelevant. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms may be ignored because weapons can be used to cause harm.

[wtmusic]

34. Oh please.

The "shooting guns is a form of free speech" meme is nonsense. Guns are dangerous. We restrict their ownership in many ways because of that. Do you advocate allowing children to own guns? They, too, have the right of free speech. What about the confirmed mentally ill? They also are guaranteed the right to speak their mind by the First Amendment.

Your analogy falls flat on its face.

[EricTeri]

35. I never said it was a form of free speech.

Yes guns are dangerous. Never said otherwise. So are a lot of other devices which we use every day. The argument that because they are dangerous we can simply ignore our protected right to have them is invalid.

Do I believe children should be allowed to own firearms? If their parents believe they are mature enough, why not? The plain fact is, it is perfectly legal for a minor to use and possess firearms. They cannot legally purchase them anymore, and cannot "own" them until they are 18, but they can certainly use them as long as their parents are OK with it. Minors could purchase firearms until 1968 without any problem - and frequently DID.

As far as the "mentally ill", if they are deemed a danger to themselves or others, they should be institutionalized. If they are capable of functioning in society, why should they lose their rights?

It is YOUR analogy which fails sir. You can ignore facts all you want, but do not expect me to do the same.

Now, can you identify the provision of the US Constitution which grants government the authority to ignore the 2nd Amendment because guns are dangerous?

[wtmusic]

37. You're getting entangled in your own logic.

Everything is dangerous. Refrigerators can be dangerous. But is everything equally dangerous? Should we dereg bomb manufacture, even private nuclear weapon manufacture?
Children can legally "possess" firearms but can't "own" them. What's the difference?
Why can't institutionalized mentally ill own firearms? Why are you ready to take away their constitutional rights, but not mine?
What if a child's parent isn't mature enough to own firearms?

[EricTeri]

39. No everything is not equally dangerous

..but there is no exception in the Constitution granting additional authority to government to restrict the right to own something dangerous.

People can and do make bombs all the time. Its basic chemistry and physics. The nuke argument is pure garbage and in all sincerity is completely self-regulating. The costs alone are prohibitive.

The difference between "own" and "possess" is a minor semantical one which really only applies from a legal perspective. Functionally they are the same.

The institutionalized mentally ill cannot because they are demonstrably not in control of their faculties. They are under the care of others. They also have given up many other rights. If they have committed themselves, they have agreed not to do certain things. If they have been committed, then due process has been applied. In either case, the restriction of their rights is legitimate.

Which rights of yours have I suggested restricting?

If the child's parent is not incarcerated and has not been adjudicated mentally defective, assuming he is a legal adult, who are YOU to say he is not mature? If the parent is old enough to purchase firearms, it is his decision as to whether or not his child can use them - not yours.

[johnbraun]

30. The CDC studied waiting periods for their effect on gun crime and violence.

No effect was found in the largest study of gun control laws ever done.

And this is Illinois, an A-rated state for gun control according to the Bradys.

It's disingenuous to say "well, that means that MORE laws are needed!". The Bradys already say that they have enough laws.

The government needs to enforce the existing ones, or get out of the way. As it stands they're saying, "No, you can't protect yourself, but we're not enforcing the laws either. Deal with it."

[wtmusic]

38. The study was inconclusive is not the same as there was "no effect"

There is a reduction of firearm-related suicide:

"Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Waiting periods for firearm acquisition require a specified delay between application for and acquisition of a firearm. Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a "cooling-off" period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase. As noted previously, one study of the interim Brady Law indicated a statistically significant reduction in firearms suicide among persons aged >55 years associated with the waiting period requirement of the interim law. Several studies suggested a partial "substitution effect" for suicide (i.e., decreases in firearms suicide are accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means) (26)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[EricTeri]

40. A reduction by one means...

...followed by an increase through other means. Net change = 0.

The suicide rate is constant regardless of the availability of firearms. In point of fact, among women, the most common methods don't require firearms at all (hanging and pills). Using the behavior of a small subset of demonstrably mentally unstable individuals as justification for restricting the rights of all is irrational - doubly so when you consider they still kill themselves.

To paraphrase Archie Bunker, would they be any less dead if they jumped out of a window?

[EricTeri]

41. I dont know - do you have any stats?

You're the one stating handguns kill students. Prove it. Prove to us they are used overwhelmingly to kill students.

You cant, so don't waste your time. The person using the gun killed them. The gun was merely a tool. It can also be demonstrated beyond any hope of rebuttal that guns are NOT used primarily to kill people - students or otherwise.

Even if your assertion were right - which is isn't - it doesn't invalidate my rights. It merely gives you a possible angle to use when arguing for a change in the law.

[EricTeri]

23. No they wouldnt

There IS a waiting period in IL and one must obtain an FOID as well. In addition, the weapons he used were purchased well in advance of the shooting.

Don't let facts get in the way though. They're so inconvenient to an emotion-based argument.

[wtmusic]

31. They were purchased one week in advance.

Not enough.

[EricTeri]

36. Apparently...

...according to the laws of the State of Illinois, the waiting period certainly WAS long enough.

I respect that you're upset that the laws you believed would stop this kind of thing have been proven once again to not work. This can be disconcerting when you've been told over and over that they will stop this kind of crime..not unlike finding out the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, you seem to think that more application of the same logic will somehow work in the future. This, my friend, is the very definition of insanity.

If you were constantly slipping on Jello in your kitchen, and you decided the solution was to nail it to the wall, and your first nail didn't work, would you try a larger nail? Perhaps you'd try the same size nail only made out of brass instead of steel? Maybe you'd try a screw instead? At what point would you recognize that you were trying the wrong solution to the problem?

[bossy22]

45. first off

they say he bought one gun in august- is that long enough for you?


also 6 months is unreasonable. i hate to say this but mass shootings are pretty rare- less than 1% of gun homicides are recoreded as mass shootings.

and why is the solution always another law....why can't we fix the current law...look he was probably barred from owning a gun but slipped through the background check- it would make sense to fix the background check.

[johnbraun]

13. It's too bad that the DNC pushed Richardson out of the race.

An actual governor, a Democrat, anti-war, Middle East experience, against the assault weapons ban, and holds a concealed pistol permit?

Sign me up!

Oh, wait, I did. And the DNC promptly trashed him.

Now look what we have. Ugh.

[Jack_DeLeon]

42. I agree.

I wanted Richardson to win. :(

[SteveM]

44. Me to....

I am leaning toward Obama, but he is distant fourth or more choice. I have a different take when I consider Hillary. She has been so tightly wound up with the Democratic establishment (which is rife with gun-controllers), I don't believe she could ever walk away from Sodom without looking back. In any case, it is up to pro-2A Democrats to put the pressure on who ever wins to reconsider their respective positions on gun-control so they will better chip away votes from McCain in the General.