if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Well, I’ll Be Damned
by Hal_10000
Obama supports the second ammendment. Kinda.
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.
He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it’s the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.
Five people, including the shooter, were killed during Thursday’s ambush inside a lecture hall. Authorities said the two guns used were purchased legally less then a week ago.
“Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities,” Obama said. “That is our duty as Americans.”
Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people’s guns.
At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.
“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution,” Obama said.
It’s not clear if he thinks this only applies to huntin’. But for Obama to say the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right is HUGE. Massive. It’s a seismic shift for a Democratic Party that has been insisting for 70 years that the Second Amendment is about state militias.
Comments
What kind of double talk crap is this? He supports the second amendment, but also supports DC’s handgun ban?
“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution,” Obama said.
Huh?!?!
Well, guys, if you’re going to hit Obama for a double standard, you’re going to have to hit Bush, who just filed a brief with the SCOTUS in support of the DC gun ban.
Look, the fucking NRA believes in an individual right and sensible regulation, such as background checks. There are no second ammendment absolutists in mainstream politics.
Look, the fucking NRA believes in an individual right and sensible regulation, such as background checks. There are no second ammendment absolutists in mainstream politics.
You posted an article of this guy saying that while he doesn’t complestely disagree with the second amendment, he’s going to do ANYTHING to end gun violence.
I doubt he thinks what’s currently in place is enough.
He also said:
He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it’s the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.
in the same article. Stop cherry-picking the pieces that you think make your point while ignoring the paragraph a couple below it.
Thanks for pointing out the JD’s brief. I was not aware of it.
I did some digging on it and it seems that a. the Bush admin isn’t exactly supportive of DC, but is more concerned with the lower court’s ruling as “too broad.”
and b. Cheney disagrees. WaPo article.
I’m all for sensible regulation, but an outright ban is not sensible.
It’s a seismic shift for a Democratic Party that has been insisting for 70 years that the Second Amendment is about state militias.
The Democrats stopped arguing it because it’s a lost cause to claim that “individual right” and “militias” are different things.
10 USC Sec. 311:
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 year of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [32 USC sec. 313], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
Supreme Court, U.S. vs. Miller (1939):
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appear from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...”
US Law and the Supreme Court have made it clear that the militia is simply every able-bodied man who can pick up a gun.
He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it’s the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.
So, dwex, how would this have prevented the violence that he references he’s trying to ‘eradicate’. California will now be able to more quickly find out that people are killed with stolen guns, or guns that were purchased in Mexico.
Oh, and I’ll get the brilliant luxury of knowing that the person who pays for crime like this is me. Just like when I go to Home Depot and have to go through a background check to buy a can of spray paint.
It was also very cute of Obama to reference gangbangers, of which he’s asking for the ones who are not felons to vote for him this year.
The man who carried out this shooting was NOT a gangbanger.
Stop cherry-picking the pieces that you think make your point while ignoring the paragraph a couple below it.
I don’t think that’s cherry-picking. My point was not that Obama is a second amendment supporter or an opponent of gun control. The bit I quoted specifically says that he supports gun control. The particular of legislation are not relevant.
What the point of my quote is that we have the Democratic front-runner acknowledging that the Second Amendment supports an individual right. That is a big big change because no Democrat in the past would say such a thing.
The man who carried out this shooting was NOT a gangbanger.
Most of the shootings seem to be non-gang related. These are just people that snap. There really isn’t a fix for random craziness. You just need to hope that you aren’t there when it happens.
Manwhore, you ARE kidding about the spray paint, right?
So, dwex, how would this have prevented the violence that he references he’s trying to ‘eradicate’.
I actually have no real idea. Go read my comments in the “McCain Meets Dad” thread from a couple days ago, which were largely insprired by my reading an article on this Obama position, and wanting to discuss how the hell you find a solution to the dilemma of doing something about gun violence without taking away 2nd amendment rights. The stock answers are too extreme for my liking (I am equally bothered by the DC ban and the NRA “it’s all a slippery slope” positions).
I would really like to have a rational discussion on the topic.
I would really like to have a rational discussion on the topic.
It’s hard to get a real debate going about what is essentially a religious topic. Random violence isn’t preventable without serious loss of freedom.
I am convinced that violence has little to do with government activity and everything to do with culture and individual choice. The best policy the government can engage in locking up violent people. It would not have prevented NIU but it has had a measurable and solid effect in cutting violence by one-third over the last two decades.
But I always liked what Penn and Teller said about Columbine—no matter what we do, troubled kids will always finds ways to break our hearts.
I actually have no real idea. Go read my comments in the “McCain Meets Dad” thread from a couple days ago, which were largely insprired by my reading an article on this Obama position, and wanting to discuss how the hell you find a solution to the dilemma of doing something about gun violence without taking away 2nd amendment rights. The stock answers are too extreme for my liking (I am equally bothered by the DC ban and the NRA “it’s all a slippery slope” positions).
I don’t think you can. the most you can do is cherry pick an event like this and create some form of a ‘Patriot Act’ of sorts to explain how your rights are going to only be ‘temporarily’ tampered with until we can stamp this problem out.
which I find very curious that poeple can ‘Blame Bush’ for the Patriot Act using terror as the scapegoat, and then call for gun control for the very same reason.
Manwhore, you ARE kidding about the spray paint, right?
No, I am not. In the state of California you are required to show a proof of ID (acknowledging that you are 18yrs. or older) and must be accompanied by a store employee who will unlock a cabinet so you can buy a can of spray paint.
the store clerks my question your motive and decide not to sell to you. It is at thier discretion.
Liberals can learn a great lesson about an Obama presidency by looking at California State Politics.
Just take a look at some of the retarded legislative answers to gang related crime so far. Link
I don’t think you can.
I hate that answer. I don’t disagree with it. I just don’t like it.
which I find very curious that poeple can ‘Blame Bush’ for the Patriot Act using terror as the scapegoat, and then call for gun control for the very same reason.
The same reason people can be anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty. People tend to have lots of hypocrisy.
It’s independents and centrists like me who can despise the Patriot Act and the DC gun ban on equal footing, and be both pro-choice and pro-death-penalty.
I hate that answer. I don’t disagree with it. I just don’t like it.
To the best of my knowledge in the state of California there is a waiting period between the purchase of a handgun and the pick up. I believe you are not aloud to purchase or be in possession of one if you are a felon, right down to a bullet. It’s ten years a bullet for felons.
I also believe you need to take some sort of a psychological evaluation. I can’t imagine that you can do much more without saying that guns are banned in some way shape or form.
It is my opinion that matters like these resolve themselves if people stick to the rules that are in place. If this matter were to recieve the same attention as say speeding does by police precincts, there probably wouldn’t be much to talk about. We would be pissed of about gun stings and the like.
the trouble is that there isn’t any motivation in the side of law enforcement to do anything about it.
It’s independents and centrists like me who can despise the Patriot Act and the DC gun ban on equal footing, and be both pro-choice and pro-death-penalty.
good for you dwex.
Next entry: The Stupidest Thing I've Ever Read
Previous entry: Intelligent Warming
I’ll never understand what you see in this unpatriotic asshole. Take for example this little nugget:
what is whatever it takes, and I wonder what Obama’s definition of ‘arms’ is?
I bet you anything more than a banana is probably off limits.