Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden know that we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in this country. They know that our weak gun laws have too many loopholes, which lead to over 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries from guns every year.
Senators Obama and Biden know that we can reduce those deaths and injuries from guns by strengthening our Brady background check system, getting military-style assault weapons off our streets, and giving law enforcement more tools to stop the trafficking of illegal guns.
Fortunately, the candidates most favored by the gun lobby were rejected by the voters during the primaries. The gun lobby has lambasted Senator John McCain for being a leader on gun violence prevention issues in the past. In 2000 and 2001, he introduced legislation, gave floor speeches, and appeared in television ads to close the gun show loophole. In 2004, he gave floor speeches supporting access to crime gun trace data, requiring gun dealer inventories, and retaining background check records. Back then, Senator McCain was a "maverick", willing to take on the gun lobby.
But now, Senator McCain has stopped talking about these issues and, instead, has pandered to the gun lobby whose opinions he once disdained. His erratic approach to gun violence prevention leads to our concern about whether a President McCain would remember and follow the leadership shown by Senator McCain in 2000 and 2004 and take steps to help reduce gun violence.
The difference between the two tickets is clearest with regard to assault weapons. Senator Obama made his position clear in his acceptance speech in Denver when he said "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." And Senator Biden helped get a ban on assault weapons passed in 1994 and fought for its renewal in 2004.
Senator McCain, however, opposed the assault weapon ban in 1994 and voted against its renewal in 2004. McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, told ABC's Charles Gibson that she also opposed a ban on assault weapons, saying that they were part of her "culture."
The Obama-Biden ticket understands that the rights of law-abiding gun owners can co-exist with the reasonable restrictions which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized as "presumptively lawful" in its recent Second Amendment decision finding a general gun ban unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia stated, there is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purposes." Senator McCain once understood this concept but that "straight talk" is now silent.
The Obama-Biden ticket will work with law enforcement, gun violence victims, and ordinary citizens who want to do more to protect themselves, their families, and their communities by making it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
Along with Sarah and Jim, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters strongly endorses the Obama-Biden ticket and encourages our supporters to vote for them on November 4, 2008.
You can find out more about other Brady Campaign endorsements, as well as where the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates stand on the gun issue, at the Brady Voter Education Fund's web guide at BradyVoter.org.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
I didn’t tell you that because I’m not. I am several things, but libertarian is not one of them. If terminology must be used, the most accurate ones are classical liberal and Burkean Old Whig. More than anything, I’m a constitutionalist. The US Constitution was written in a way that incorporated some libertarian-like values, but only some; to be purely libertarian is to not believe in government as a legitimate institution, since it is more capable of infringing rights than any individual and must, by its very nature, impose limits on freedom. Unlike libertarians, I believe in a legitimate and moral function of governments, provided they are checked and limit our freedom no more than is necessary for it to function. Our culture has lost the fire in its belly to do just that, and as all un-moderated human institutions do our government has grown beyond its constitutionally-permitted powers.
If the roles of government are not strictly defined, what does that make the US Constitution? A set of suggestions, perhaps? Strong words?
That we have a lengthy history of presidents (and other politicians) abusing power, or usurping it, does not justify the continuance of this behavior. A wrong is not corrected by continued wrong-doing. You can’t break the law enough to fix the law. Do you believe that Obama’s proposed policies are fine because of the Bush Administration abused power?
(Cont.)
So when I read Senator Obama’s plans and proposals, don’t you think I have legitimate reason to be appalled? Where is the separation of powers when the president becomes a legislature unto themselves? Do you really want the president to singly influence your life so much? The whole point in three distinct branches of government was to prevent this. A man who teaches Constitutional law but who has no concept of what his role would be as president offends me. I cannot trust him to do his job correctly if he doesn’t know what his job is.
What proposals from the Good Senators are "good sense"? Is it the assault weapons ban or the insistence that my rights change when I cross a city line? Is it the closing of a "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist?
Please elaborate.
Kelli, do you even know what "solipsism" is?
It doesn't mean 'close minded' and 'self-justified beliefs' you are suggesting, it is a deep metaphysical belief. At the foundation of "Solipsism" is the belief that direct knowledge of the material world (and in some forms, the material existence itself) is derived as a contract of one's mind rather than an actual experience of what truly exists in "reality" (again, some forms of Solipism say this physical existence itself is created by the mind). This is a theory of epistemology and metaphysics, and is way beyond the context in which you are trying to apply it.
But I will play your game, and consider what you are (incorrectly) trying to say:.
1. 'Closed minded and not open to the views of other'
You refusing to even consider the facts and logic presented, even when they have been show repeatedly to be factual;ly correct.
2. "closed-minded loop that ensures a form of solipsism":
What I think you mean: One creates a beliefs by and around what they tell themselves is 'true' and then justification for this belief is only allowed to be what they continue to tell themselves is true, all apart from what IS actually true.
Again, that would be you relying on your "personal insight into an issue" and then refusing to even consider any facts that prove this "personal insight" to be incorrect.
With the Brady's support, not to mention the overwhelming majority of American families', it is clear that now is the time for a change. No more business at usual. B. Hussein is the real deal mostly. Sure there's a few things he's stumbled over, but if your every word and action was under a microscope, there's bound to be a slip-up here or there.
For you SAPs who ignore 99.5% of His platform and look only at gun rights, you are the small-minded type who are usually referred to in polls as "margin of error", meaning you really don't matter.
And when I look at Obama and the gun rights issue, I see a candidate whose moderate-sounding statements are at major variance with his previous record. That makes me wonder how much more radical Obama may actually be on other issues, as compared with his moderate-sounding campaigning.
Regarding the gun issue---the gun issue in 2008 is not about hunting. It is not about skeet shotguns, and it is not about deer rifles.
If you compare Census Bureau hunting license data to the number of gun owners in the United States, you find that slightly less than 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. The other 80% of us are nonhunters, and most of us own guns that gun-control advocates wish to ban.
The gun issue in 2008 is primarily about whether law-abiding, mentally competent adults with clean records can continue to purchase, own, and responsibly use the most popular centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation (which Mr. Helmke calls "assault weapons"), and ordinary pistols (which Mr. Helmke wishes to restrict via harsh magazine capacity limits). Of the two, legislating rifle styling and stock shape/ergomics seems to be the top legislative priority.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97165
http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y
So after decades of gun control legislation which has statisticaly proven ineffective toward curbing violent crime, of course I am going to look at people like Paul Helmke like they have two heads because they now want to regulate a subclass (assault weapons, handguns, etc...) of inanimate objects, when regulating the object itself has already proven a waste of finite resources in the 1st place.
Assault rifles, handguns, .50 cals, ......it's all a scapegoat for not having the financial or social ability to address the social deficiencies causing crime.
Gun-rights proponents can recognize and admit this.
Gun-controllers also recognize it, but cannot admit it.
The Brady Campaign wishes to ban handguns because they are small. They have gone so far as to lable any handgun weighing less than 50 ounces( 3.125lbs ) as a saturday night special "junk gun" and any handgun weighing more than 50 ounces as an assault weapon.
The Brady Campaign wishes to ban .50 cals for the exact opposite reason of them being large.
The Brady Campaign wishes to ban semi-autos because they are of medium size and fire what is defined as an intermediate sized cartridge.
The Brady campaign wishes to ban guns that have "sniper accessories" which most people would call a scope.
The Brady Campaign wishes to ban any forearm with a barrel diameter of greater than half an inch which would include every 12 gauge shotgun ever made as well as the Brown Bess musket, a muzzle loading black powder gun used both by us and against us when we fougt the British empire.
They Brady Campaign has never, I repeat NEVER called any gun-control law or gun ban that it came across "unreasonable" or counter to "common sense."
In the localities that had total 100% gun bans in effect and then decided to drop it after the Heller ruling rather than finance a losing battle, the Brady Campaign complained about it.
This is why we are here.
"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."
What gun laws, if any, does he consider unconstitutional under the second amendment (other then total gun bans)? We don't know because he won't say. What does he mean by "common-sense, effective safety measures"? We don't know because he won't say. It is particularly important for him to explain this because a lot of us out there recognize "common sense gun laws" as a gun control group code word for "any gun law we want to pass". But again, Obama will not articulate his position.
He's also been insisting lately that he "isn't going to take away your guns." Even if that's true, he didn't say weather or not he would try to prevent us from getting new ones (with a new assault weapons ban, which he says he supports), or try to prevent us from carrying our guns with CCW permits (which he says he opposes). This issues urgently need articulation from him, but he refuses to give it.
You guys have certainly given me a lot to think about - as if I haven't got enough on my plate at the moment. But this is serious stuff and I need to get up to speed on all of it - I'm just not sure there's enough time before the election.
Which brings me to the final point I would try to make, for now...this election is about so much more than gun control and the 2nd Amendment, as important as that issue is and as relevant to the COTUS and individual versus collective rights as it is.
This election is about whether you want the next President to implement a comprehensive strategy to promote a political solution in Iraq to end the civil war which would allow for the responsible withdrawal of US forces without leaving a failed state in their wake OR you want to see a continuation of a tactic without a strategic goal (a.k.a. the surge) and war with no end in sight...to say nothing of the situation in Afghanistan.
This election is about whether you want the next President to count himself as a supporter of the troops and veterans in every way that counts OR you're OK with the next POTUS giving only lip service on the stump to the issues of concern to the troops and vets. I’d love to have a discussion about voting records on this issue!
...continued...
Obama will say whatever is convenient at the moment. Try and lock him down to a plan on Iraq and he went from definitive timetable to leaving 50K troops there indefinitely. On the surge he went from "it will increase violence" to "well it reduced it for a time".
On firearms, he says " I support the 2A but (there's always a but) he supports local and federal restrictions across the board.
Look to his record (what there is of it) and not his rhetoric.
Senator Biden is the only person on the face of the planet who understands what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq and withdraw US forces without leaving a failed state in their wake. He also understands that the surge was a tactic which utterly failed to achieve its intended strategic goal.
I guess what I'm saying here is that this may be the first time in US presidential politics where the Vice President will play such an important and critical role - for the benefit of all Americans, I might hasten to add. In other words, VP Biden will be the complete polar opposite of Dick Cheney...I say that hoping you're not a fan of the dark one! :)
This election is about whether or not you want the next President to continue the policies of a failed economic philosophy that does not recognize that the engine of prosperity resides in the middle class and fails to understand what will be required to move the country towards energy security.
This election is about whether or not you want the next President to understand that the US will not win the war against radical Islamist fundamentalism alone and that he will need to restore US credibility in the world and regain America's global leadership role if there is any hope of resolving the myriad of critical global challenges that face us all.
It is not hyperbole to suggest that this election is the most important in all of our lifetimes. The outcome will literally determine the direction the nation will take and whether it will be a radical change in course toward progress or a continuation of failed policies, at home and abroad.
I guess my question for you guys is this...where do you stand on these issues and does gun control and the 2nd Amendment trump them all?
What he will do to bring 'change' will only leave us with that in our pockets.
Take healthcare, for example - McCain wants to tax employer provided healthcare plans which would amount to the biggest tax on the middle class in history since the overarching goal of this policy is to END employer-provided healthcare...permanently. Now, they do plan to mitigate this by providing a healthcare tax credit of $5000. The only thing is that under this policy 20 million people stand to lose their employer-provided healthcare plan and the $5000 credit will look pretty lame when they realize that they'll need more than double that to get a new plan.
This is one of the many ironies of this campaign. My favorite, though, is that Senator McCain's strength is foreign policy and national security. Even you would have to give me a break on that one! Granted, foreign policy is not exactly an Obama strength, either. But, Obama has something that McCain does not - Joe Biden is his 2nd in command.
However, when he chose Joe Biden as his chief advisor - the resident expert on foreign policy, national security, and the judiciary - well, suffice to say that was the ultimate game changer for me.
As for how Obama/Biden plan to pay for their policies - I would just say that, for starters, they will end the Bush/McCain policy of spending 10 billion dollars per month in Iraq.
And, any independent analysis of the Obama/Biden tax policy would clearly show it to be shaped by one fundamental principle - fairness. I cannot believe how McCain/Palin can get away with their complete distortions and outright lies about tax policy - their own and that of Obama/Biden.
...continued...
The 2d Amendment certainly trumps any vote for Obama!
Vote McCain!
Semper fi
Vote McCain will ensure that others that can use the Semper fi are in combat for years to come without the proper equipment, support, benefits and compensation.
A 71 year old guy who has lined up a dunce that most likely has no clue of your Semper fi is just the ticket for a ride to hell.
While we disagree let me state that your service is most appreciated by me as it gives me the freedom to disagree - please review McCain's ranking when it comes to supporting veterans rights; most that have walked the talk agree that his repeated anti-vet stance is what lacks respect.
Guns are NOT allowed! period!
This mentality we have in this country that we have to "defend" ourselves maybe would not exist if we all started at ground zero without a gun - yes maybe someone could use a knife, or kick box or something like that but there would be so fewer murders - it's appalling that we feel we need it for "protection" ridiculous.
Wrong.
In the real world, criminals will still have firearms even if you ban them all. Allowing people to defend themselves isn't what increases murders, its criminals running rampant.
But it's so much easier to cry "ban them all" instead of looking at reality, isn't it?
...........Well except for the Spanish Inquasition, the Crusades, the conquests of Ghangis Kahn, and pillages of Atila the Hun to name a few.
Oh well, that was all ancient history, there are no modern examples of mass murders without guns..............
..................Well except for the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, which was primarily carried out with Machetes.
And who ended the Rwanda genocide? It was a group of armed citzens. What were they armed with? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't bows and arrows.
As an Ohio resident, I find this statement particularly disturbing. Why are the constitutional rights of people in rural areas any more or less important then people in cities? Arn't we all equal under the law? Does Obama feel that the other constitutional rights of citizens depend on where they live as well?
His statement brings up a lot of important questions, but unfortunantly, the media has been too timid and cowardly to ask them.
Obama: "but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
Notice Obama didn't say Ak47's (or other rifles) should be banned, he just said they should be kept out of the hands of criminals. Yet, gun control advocates are interpreting this as advocating a total ban. Everyone should remember this. When gun control advocates say they only want to "prevent dangerous people from getting dangerous weapons", they really mean they want a total ban on guns for everyone.
What the Brady's and Obama want banned are semi-auto firearms that LOOK LIKE military firearms.
As for the "proof"? All we have to do is look at their records. Just like we do w/ Obama.
But over here in the real world, production of automatic weapons for citizens is already banned (the weapons effected by 1994 AWB, including Ak's were not automatic). Also, in the real world, "assault rifles" are used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense as much as all other firearms.
But I see you prefer your Brady Center fantasy land more. Still, if you want to learn some facts and join the rest of us in the real world, we'll welcome you into it.
When the LAPD holds events where people turn in illegal guns, or they raid homes of drug dealers, they pull out a cash of weapons that include mostly assault weapons, AK-47's. This is the reality of the inner city whether many of you like it or not. If you don't live it, it does not exist. Well, not only have I lived it, I see it all the time. That is my reality.
No they don't. They pull out a couple of semi-auto firearms that look like AK-47's.
Glad to see your 'reality' is based on a lie perpetuated by the anti-gun organizations and the media.
Does Obama feel that the constitutional rights of people in big cites are less important then those of people in rural towns? We don't know, because as I said, the media refuses to ask him. But the implications of his statement are disturbing and should not be ignored.
it appears that the BC is looking at Obama's and Biden's voting record instead of listening to his rehtoric while trying to get elected.
This is precisely what the NRA has been saying all along. Don't listen to what they say and look at what they have done.
So privately, the BC looks at their records and agrees, but publicly tell all the sheeple to ignore their records and listen to what they say, which is that their are strong defenders of the 2A?
Nice corner ya got yourself in.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt
It is about outlawing NON-automatic, civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out or stocks that adjust to fit different size shooters. It is about outlawing the most popular non-automatic target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, substantially more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, yet only 3% of U.S .murders involve ANY type of rifle.
I have yet to see any believer in the "assault weapon menace" even attempt to address the following objective data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_MidYear_Report.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/leokweap.png
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/leoka051208.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel07/leoka051407.htm
http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466
Fact is, rifles are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been, and protruding handgrips and adjustable stocks do NOT make small-caliber civilian rifles any deadlier.
No, we'll keep our "assault weapons," thanks.
The Brady Campaign and the AHSA agree, Obama supports 'gun control' in all its facets.
AHSA endorses Obama.
Brady Campaign endorses Obama.
Brady Campaign endorses AHSA as having "complimentary views" on the gun issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association
Obama says he's a strong supporter of the 2A.
Does that mean that the Brady Campaign is endorsing a strong supporter of the 2A?
What say you, Paul?