Taking on The Lobby
After the horror that was Northern Illinois University Thursday afternoon, Barack Obama announced Friday morning that, as a constitutional attorney, he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, thinks it doesn't only apply to the militia, and that he also plans to use California gun control legislation as a paradigm for a national policy to contain the spread of gun violence.
But, is it really possible to have it both ways? Can one support the right to bear arms, as well as implement the kind of national gun control legislation that will stem the flood of shootings on our nation's campuses, streets, and homes? Essentially, the question is, should Senator Obama become President Obama would he be prepared to take on the most powerful, and influential, congressional lobby outside of the tobacco industry, the gun lobby?
After the spate of campus killings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now at Northern Illinois, there is little doubt that the former president, and his attorney general brother, Robert F. Kennedy, would be hard at work on gun control legislation now. Obama is fond of this quote from President John F. Kennedy: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate," but is he any more ready for hand to hand combat with those who put their rifles next to Gideon's Bible in Motel 6's from Idaho to Alaska, those who are the most obstinate opponents of restrictions on the possession, manufacture, and sale of firearms?
He suggests that he would support legislation on the order of gun laws implemented, in California, during Gray Davis' tenure as governor. While California has some of the most draconian firearm laws in the country, requiring that only those handguns be sold, or manufactured, that are listed on the Bureau of Firearms approved list, it's important to remember that private sales are exempted from this restriction. Moreover, one does not need a license to own a handgun in California.
In the nation's capital, all firearms must be registered with the police, and possession of handguns is prohibited, even in one's home, unless they were registered before 1976. And, while this handgun ban is currently being challenged by those who think it violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms, the ban will remain in effect until the Supreme Court hears the case.
Importantly, with the exception of certain counties, in Illinois, site of Thursday's mass shootings, and Obama's home state, registering a firearm is not mandated by law, and a Firearm Owner's Identification Card may be easily obtained unless the applicant has been convicted of a felony, or was a mental patient within the past five year nor is there a carry permit requirement. Notably, the gunman who randomly shot two dozen in a university lecture hall obtained his guns legally.
As one who doesn't profess to know enough about constitutional law to discuss the Second Amendment, I leave it to the Supreme Court to decide what that entitlement is. But, one can only hope that the image of the Virginia Tech shooter will be juxtaposed in the justices' memory along with the Northern Illionis University gunman, as well as others who have taken the lives of middle school students in Oxnard, and done drive-bys throughout our inner cities. One would hope that this, too, would be factored into their deliberations. Were it possible for the founding fathers to anticipate that, two centuries after their demise, assault weapons would be used by neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, they might have been less ambiguous as to when one has a constitutional right to bear arms. Clearly, as survivors of a revolutionary war, there concept of citizen and militia must have been much different from our own.
Those who like to compare Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy, or his brother and attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, must be reminded that, whether rightly or otherwise, President Kennedy stood up to Cuba, and Bobby Kennedy took on organized crime. We may not be sure of much, but we can count on the chutzpah of both Kennedy brothers to take on the most virulent of corporate lobbies in this country.
For the past eight years, we've had a president, and a Justice Department, that is too spineless to admit having taken a wrong turn with respect to our involvement in Iraq, yet is not afraid, or ashamed, to tweak the Constitution in ways that compromise freedom of expression, and due process. For nearly a decade, the Bush administration has lip synched the neo-conservative mantra of respect for human life while, at the same time, forever changing our notion of human rights. One has only to look at the treatment Jose Padilla received in the hands of his captors to grasp that this administration has no more respect for the human rights, and dignity, of its citizens than of those it detains in Iraq, or Afghanistan.
One thing is clear, a McCain presidency will cater to the gun lobby, and not act to limit access to firearms.
Moreover, if interpretation of the Second Amendment is in order, one would hope that it would be weighed heavily in favor of the preservation of human life, thus we ask Senator Obama, or any presidential nominee, to look to Washington, D.C., not to California, as a model for gun control legislation, and to work together with gun groups, and law enforcement, to get firearms out of the hands of our children, out of our classrooms, schoolyards, and streets.
If Senator Obama becomes his Party's nominee, then he must distinguish himself from his Republican opponent by demonstrating his commitment to curtailing the proliferation of handguns and assault weapons.
Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
continue....
Just wait while the police find out whats going on, get there, figure out whats going on, then do something. THATS the American Way: Hire a professional.
Don't worry, YOU can't do anything. YOU would just start a crossfire that would get people killed. Guns are just to complicated for you. Just wait, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Just pray. You can't train enough(most police have to qualify EVERY year.) You can't practice enough(2 to 4 times per year for most police).
You could shoot the wrong person. It happens! Civilians with concealed weapons permits are 1/800 as likely to shoot the wrong person as police. Why risk it when all that is at stake is yours and others lives?
Praying is better, get close to god before you are forcibly introduced.
Because even if you jump through the hoops to get a permit in your state. Even if you train more than police. You still can't take YOUR gun to the places that these mad dogs attack.
See, if you take your gun there they will kick you out of school or send you to jail for up to a year. This law is aimed at people who are facing the death penalty for what they have in mind, but they will use it to prosecute you. God forbid that a mad dog face a year in jail AND the death penalty, they usually choose to die before being captured.
OK I guess these laws ARE aimed at you. Oh well.
Oh well. Besides your chances of meeting common criminals who just want to mug, rape, rob, or kill you. Mad dogs are not common. They are those one in a million things. So there are what? 300 or so out there in America now?
Its happened again. Another mad dog turns and attacks the pack and, predictably, talk turns to taking every bodies teeth. "If only they hadn't been able to get a gun."
What? They would have stayed home and torn the labels off from their mattresses instead? One guy used a meat cleaver. These sick creatures are going to kill. Mad dogs do that.
"But take away their guns and they wont be able to kill so many!" Right, eliminate every gun in America and you can sleep well at night Your dream of the next Cho chaining and locking the doors of a school building will not be so bad. He can't kill 32 people with an ax, or knife, right? Or a can of gas,or run their car down a sidewalk, through a mall, park,or across a playground. Or use a bottle of bleach and a reactant( I don't want to give anyone any ideas, if you really need to know, do the world a favor: experiment in a small closed room with no ventilation. ) oops
Cocktails anyone? If that under-medicated mad dog in Illinois had had six or seven Molotovs we would still be counting the dead and disfigured. Sweet dreams.
I think I would prefer that these guy had guns.
Less people dead and all.
Easier to stop.
Bullets do it every time. That is the traditional way to deal with mad dogs.
continued...
We should have sensible gun laws, but it is a mistake to identify pro-gun sentiment with any particular "lobby." In rural areas, many kids grow up with guns; they went hunting and shooting with their fathers, and spend ridiculous amounts of time and money in these pursuits during adulthood. Their most precious memories are wrapped up in this pursuit. And, I think they should be allowed to keep their guns. In many ways, gun laws are like abortion laws or marriage laws (I'm not saying they are morally the same, just politically). The only viable solution is the middle because anything on the ends would meet with so much resistance that it would not be politically viable.
Was their a point to this article? Because I missed it unless it's "guns are bad'. I am a registered Democrat, an NRA member, and a Marine Corps combat disabled veteran with 12 years service. I have the right to bear arms in this country unlike many others like Australia and Great Britain who have seen gun crime shoot (no pun intended) up after banning hand guns. I use handguns to protect myself and my family and for sport shooting. I am really tired of people who don't know anything spouting off about 'assault weapons'. What you are referring to is a rifle that has been neutered s that there is nothing 'assault' about it except it's appearance. no it cannot be changed to full automatic firing ether as so many claim. Further more very few crimes have been committed with them. As I said i am a registered democrat. i pay attention to the issues and I vote. I communicate with both republican and democrat politicians to let them know who I feel about the issue. Even though I think any gun owner needs to be an NRA member if they wish to keep their constitutional right to bear arms I also disagree with some of the NRA approach to things and I let them know that too. Finally it's nice to know that you can commune with he dead and know that the Kennedy's would now do something they never showed any interest in when they were alive.
See David Horton's Profile
"I have the right to bear arms in this country unlike many others like Australia and Great Britain who have seen gun crime shoot (no pun intended) up after banning hand guns". Don't be silly. Why don't you try comparing deaths from guns in America as against Australia and Britain? No one is armed in Australia except the police, and there are no school or mall shootings of the kind that affect America every week. It would never occur to me that I might be shot while shopping or at school - and that is because people don't have guns on them, and don't see guns as the way to solve problems. Guns are a sickness in American society just as drugs are. Until you have a war on guns and get rid of the awful things from your society and mentality you will keep getting these needless deaths. And you won't see the issue straight unti gun lobbyists stop spouting meaningless nonsense about gun deaths rising in Australia as a result of handguns being banned. Take a look around the world - no country has gun deaths like America and no country has gun ownership like America - hey, you don't suppose those two facts might be related do you? People in a civilzed country shouldn't have to live in fear of being killed while going about their daily lives.
Gee Whiz how do I get a neat billboard like this?
Don't go expressing an opinion about gun crime in the USA unless you familiarize yourself with the DEMOGRAPHICS of firearms related crime.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/ntcm.htm
Neither guns nor their criminal misuse are a sickness. A silly concept.
You Australians can have any type of society you please - just don't jump to the conclusion that what works for you would work here - DEMOGRAPHICS. Take a look around the world - as in WWII. We saved your asses and everybody else's so show some appreciation.
I have no fear about being killed while going about my daily routine - I keep out of well defined neighborhoods and have no involvement with the drug trade - DEMOGRAPHICS.
As for random events - over 35 states have implemented concealed carry laws within the last few decades and the results have been outstanding. Deal with it. No doubt you Aussies aren't mature enough to be allowed concealed carry. That's you - not US. BTW in the USA self protection is not just a right but an obligation and responsibility - surely an odd concept there in the land of OZ. Review the following.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Try familiarizing yourself with the well reasoned positions presented here. (From all sides.)
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html
Well, you made most of the points. But you missed one. The op argued gun crimes went up *AFTER* the implementation of gun laws in Great Britain (I can't comment on Australia as I don't know enough of their history). Wrong, gun crimes have gone up only recently. And it's because British criminals can get all the weapons they need from the US (and other countries, mainly since the fall of the USSR) and easily smuggle them into GB.
The History Channel repeats their History of the Gun documentary every few months, showing how the Thompson machine gun was more easily available to criminals than law enforcement. I think they said Thompsons were sold through the mail, Legislation finally brought this imbalance to an end.
BTW, I'd like a law that prevents any advocate of "Carry concealed weapons" laws from questioning anyone whether they're "carrying" before allowing them into their house, car, or place of business. Only those those against allowing carrying concealed weapons would be allowed to refuse entry based on possession or refusal to answer truthfully. That includes all political office holders. Ya want it, ya better be prepared to live personally with the consequences.
Sorry, Dave, silly just won't do it.
You need to provide links for your assertions about Australia and Great Britain, just like snookie needed to. There is just too much lore on this subject. We can't take anybody's word for it. This is the web. This is an argument. We need citations.
Some people don't inhabit the urban, suburban, exurban hive. Guns are useful to them. If killing living things is moral, then the use of guns to kill is moral. Many people who use guns on a regular basis don't use them to kill. Many people who have guns seldom use them at all. Even waving a gun around can be a crime. Handling guns has to be done in an extremely low key way.
Those people who are not in the hive are inhabiting a different reality than those in the hive. Events in the hive are unlikely to involve them. They don't want to be limited by rules which come from a completely different context than the one in which they live.
So guns are a sickness. Just like drugs. And just like drugs, we need a war on guns. Because the war on drugs has been SO UNBELIEVABLY successful. And cheap. So we need another "war" like that.
"People in a civilized society shouldn't have to live in fear of being killed while going about their daily lives." Most people don't live in fear. It's a risk factor. It's not something to obsess over.
The consensus is that there is a right to bear arms. You can't overturn that. You don't have the votes. You folks have tried this a hundred times, and all it does is lose us votes. Why do you want to go on arguing about it?
I am unequivocally stating that being anti-gun is not an ideological requirement for a progressive. Y'all need to stop assuming that it is. Furthermore, gun lovers are a legitimate constituency of the progressive movement. It's way past time we jettisoned this losing issue as one of our signature issues.
David, you need to look around Australia! I was in Adelaide last March for the World Police & Fire Games. The shooting ranges were full of Australians. Yes, mostly were police or firefighters, that was the event. However, each firing range was manned by the civilian members of the clubs they belong to. And these same civilians, during lulls in the firing, were on the line sharing their tips with we visitors. Please, know whereof you speak prior to speaking.
Semper fi
I'm sorry you're so fearful about about being shot at a mall or school. If it helps the odds are greatly in your favor for surviving your trips. We have about 30,000 gun deaths per year in this country. Half of those are suicides. Of the remaining 15,000 or so gun deaths about half of those are criminals killing other criminals. If you don't fall into this group your odds just went way up.
That leaves about 7,500 gun deaths yearly for innocent people that (1.) Don't end their own lives and (2.) Aren't gang bangers or other criminals.
7,500 gun deaths out of 300 million people. The odds are greatly in your favor. I hope this helps you to get over your unreasonable fear.
Great post. The author did a poor job trying to refute your points.
Not that one would ever choose to argue with someone who goes by the name "far seeing," but clearly the article is discussing what happens after one is already in the White House, not one's past history, or beliefs.
What happened to those youngsters at the San Francisco Zoo when Tatiana the tiger jumped her cage, and mauled them, is nothing compared with what happens to anyone who dares to get too close to those who think their right to self-defense must come at the expense of everyone, and everything including reason.
Old Far Seeing Art - caretaker/groundskeeper at Inverness Mansion. Can be found in The Fourth Tower of Inverness with other fun stories at zbs.org. Not what you think - thanks for asking.
If you're running for prez you run on your legislative history. The last time I checked Sen. Obama's website he did not list his bills sponsored/co-sponsored nor his voting record.
As for reason - I have posted before and repeat, we will have to criminalize contact with the psychiatric community if we are to stop these types of incidents. By that I mean listing on NCIS for background checks and listing with local law enforcement. By contact I mean any prescribing of medication for any psychiatric condition of any magnitude.
The federal govt's requirements for barring firearms ownership is already very broad - consider the 9 May 2007 open letter to states attorneys general at ATF. (Link may be truncated by HuffPo).
http://www.atf.gov/press/2007press/050907open-letter-to-states-attorneys-general.htm
All or at least almost all of these incidents have a common aspect of psychiatric medication. If the prescribing of this class of medication triggered firearms disability then one can expect a decrease in this type of crime.
Gee ... she appointed herself as a spokesperson for Robert and John Kennedy as well as the 'founding fathers'.
Check the briefs submitted to the present case before the Supreme Court - the list expands daily. All sides are weighing in.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html
Sen Obama is stridently anti firearms rights.
http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
And
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/barack-obama-on-gun-control/
What more can any anti gun or anti firearms rightist possibly ask for?
This self appointed 'Constitutional Scholar' had better hope that SCOTUS backs him up - else he's got a problem with the election.
Only a fool would tangle with our right to bear arms. Obama and Hillary saw how Bubba's sad attempt to regulate "assault" weapons turned out. He took the Dems into the wilderness for 8 years! Attempting to impede our most important right is political suicide, both literally and metaphorically speaking. Instead of wringing your hands over this incident, if you have a kid in college, get them training in handling a pistol and then buy them one!
Hear! Hear! Well said!
He won Idaho by promoting his support of gun-sales.
Sorry.
But he's already come out in favor.
And, btw......I so disagreed with him there.
God and Guns doesn't strike ME as progressive.
But hey......I'll let you "progressives" decide.
I've already voted.
Are you proposing a solution, or are you just spouting anti gun platitudes? A lot of law abiding people, myself included, own guns. I'v never NOT owned a gun. My children were taught how to shoot, how to maintain the gun, and how to respect guns. It didn't hurt them any more than teaching them how to ride a horse, catch a fish, drive a car, or cook macaroni and cheese did. Restricting the rights of law abiding peaceable people will not make people who are so inclined to stop committing crimes with guns. We might as well make the sale of cars illegal, because more people are killed every year with cars.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
