There was a heated conversation this evening about politics and at one point it turned to gun control and how Barack Obama was going to take away an American’s right to bear arms. This isn’t the first time I have heard this, in fact I have heard it about John Kerry, a gun owner.
So I did a little bit of research on my own.
Responding to District of Columbia v. Heller, Mr Obama pointed out that Justice Scalia (Appointed by Ronald Reagan) had, while ruling that the DC ban went too far, acknowledged that the right to bear arms is “not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations”.
He then says, “I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”
Basically he leaves it up to municipalities to decide what to do.
I personally don’t own a gun, nor have I ever fired one. Even though I don’t trust the majority of Americans to do so, I respect and somewhat understand one’s right to own and carry a gun. But with this comes great responsibility. If you can’t go through a background check and wait a couple days or respect a law that requires a safety lock on all firearms then perhaps you aren’t responsible enough to own a weapon.
From my research all Barack Obama wants is reasonable control that will perhaps prevent another incident like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech.
I think that’s both reasonable and fair.
rAmen, brother.
Comment by dk — September 8, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
I applaud your writing about this, but anybody who believes that a candidate for president in 2008 wants to take away Americans’ fourth ammendment rights isn’t interested in facts; they’re just rationalizing their vote for the other guy.
Comment by matthew — September 9, 2008 @ 5:11 am
Obama is very anti-gun; his record shows this. Campaign promises are worthless.
Comment by BobG — September 9, 2008 @ 7:02 am
His record shows that he is for reasonable enforcement and licensing of gun owners.
Comment by Ryan — September 9, 2008 @ 8:21 am
@BobG Which of his actions do you consider “anti-gun”?
Comment by matthew — September 9, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Barack Obama’s Gun-Related Votes during U.S. Senate debates:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens Anti-gun Banning many common semi-automatic firearms Anti-gun Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned Anti-gun Imposing one handgun a month restrictions Anti-gun Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks Anti-gun Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits Anti-gun Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners Anti-gun Restricting the interstate sales of firearms Anti-gun Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC Anti-gun
He has gone on record as wanting to ban handguns, and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations. What you may consider reasonable, does not always look reasonable to others, especially those who have actually owned and used firearms. I would be willing to bet that most of the information you have on them is faulty, as most information comes from the Brady Campaign, who falsify and distort facts about firearms, and are very much trying to eliminate the legal ownership of firearms.
Comment by BobG — September 9, 2008 @ 11:36 am
I linked to my source in the post.
He has never put fourth legislation to ban guns. He supports a community’s right to ban, but would put fourth no such ban himself.
Comment by Ryan — September 9, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
All gun bans start with “reasonable control” and go downhill from there.
Comment by BobG — September 9, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
The president does not have the executive power to pass a federal ban on guns, it would never pass.
Can you show me some modern data that I can read that you are basing your opinion on? Something from at least this century that isn’t Washington DC.
Comment by Ryan — September 10, 2008 @ 5:35 am
@BobG Your argument amounts to “although his position is reasonable, I am able to determine the future based on this position, and I don’t like it.” Not very convincing. You might as well say that all gun bans start with making murder illegal and go downhill from there.
Comment by matthew — September 10, 2008 @ 8:22 am
I can’t say whether or not he’d make good on it or not but I agree with the position. You have the right to protect yourself and your family, not to get a gun easily and discreetly so that you can turn around and sell it to someone who wouldn’t pass a background check.
Comment by Jon — October 1, 2008 @ 3:50 pm