Jim And Sarah Brady, Brady Campaign Endorse Barack Obama And Joe Biden

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.)

Comments

[Sneaky]

LizM:

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.)

[Sneaky]

You see, where you and I disagree is this: I’ve read the US Constitution and agree that it describes how the federal government ought to be. No if’s, and’s, or buts. We have written within our Constitution the ability to change government. If the people want the changes implemented, they will support those changes through their elected representatives. That’s how representative republics work. No work-arounds to avoid the "hassle" of the legislative process. The president is an even more limited role – they aren’t even supposed to be representative of any one constituency. They’re supposed to head the administrations created under the Executive Branch by Congress, direct the military in times of war, etc. Their only legislative function is minimal; if the people, through Congress, really want something, a veto doesn’t matter.

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.

[LizM]

I'm sorry, Sneaky, but I most definitely do not think that you have a legitimate reason to be so concerned about the separation of powers - at least, not from the Obama/Biden ticket. If you want a reason to be worried about this and any number of critical issues of war and peace and life and death, then you can vote for McCain/Palin.

[shedances]

I know that some here have their eyes firmly fixed on battling for what they see as their constitutional & God-given gunrights. However, I would counter that there are many other valid points, on private ownership of firearms, beyond those that suggest that every bill, every regulation curbing such weapons possession is 'unconstitutional.' When discussions begin going in that direction ~ which they often do, in my experience here ~ it becomes a sort of closed-minded loop that ensures a form of solipsism among this particular gunrights crowd. This extreme preoccupation (albeit, a shortened defn.) with such so-called gunrights, too, is what makes it very tough for some to see the good sense proposals from Sens. Obama/Biden, IMO.

[Sneaky]

How does one "curb...such weapons"?

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.

[djkrlsn]

Related--why should my basic rights change when I pass a state line--I view the BOR as a minimum standard.

[Tao21Zen]

ROFLMAO.... "Solipsism"

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.

[shedances]

Laugh all you want, zendao ... but my (above) points are still valid 'as is.' And you sort of exemplify the point of this post (though I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, in the pro-gun camp, when I wrote it). Anyway, thanks for your honest assessment. Enjoy the debate tonight.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--what part of the Heller decision and "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand. Simple rule I found in the early 1990's--if HCI/Brady Campaign supports it--not only is that legislation unconstitutional , it is illogical, unreasonable and completely counter to common sense. If you want to reduce any form of violence--keep the people commiting said violence in prison. The second amendment is as clear as crystal to anyone with a working knowledge of history and English.

[benEzra]

"beyond those that suggest that every bill, every regulation curbing such weapons possession is 'unconstit­utional.'"

I, at least, have said no such thing. I am OK with the point-of-sale background check, the National Firearms Act of 1934, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986, and efforts to identify and prosecute straw purchasers and felons-in-­possession­.

What I oppose is harassment of lawful and responsible gun owners using criminal violence as an excuse. Fighting to outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out, adjustable rifle stocks, and muzzle threads falls into the latter category, by any rational measure; not only are such measure IRRELEVANT to rifle lethality, but only 3% of murders involve rifles anyway. And I have yet to see a rational defense of such measures from people on your side of the issue.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--if the laws are dealing only with felons and leave law abiding citizens alone. I would be far more willing to work with you; but since you want to not only disarm law abiding citizen but keep still violent felons out of prison, I see no alternative but to oppose you.

[edutilos]

After a long break, I think it is time for me to bestow my gift of knowledge to you sad Second Amendment Parrots (SAPS).

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.

[fishyjay]

When my dissatisfaction with McCain makes me look closer at Obama, I see the most Left-wing major-party candidate that I have ever been offered.

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.

[djkrlsn]

Toomuchtim­ealone--Ob­ama is not only wrong on the 2nd amendment, he is wrong on the 1rsl, he is wrong on taxes--and I don't vote for people who support Marxian economics.

[benEzra]

The fact that they may be attractive on other issues (particularly Obama, Biden less so for me) does not excuse their support for gun bans from criticism.

Senator Obama thinks "assault weapons ban" is about machineguns (it's not), Biden thinks most gun owners are hunters or skeet shooters (we're not), and both seem to think that rifles with modern styling are a crime problem (they're not).
The gun issue wasn't "margin of error" in 1994; it was a net loss of 20+ House seats, defeat of the sitting Speaker for the first time since the Civil War, and loss of the Senate. It wasn't "margin of error" in 2004, when Gore lost TN and WV (and therefore the electoral college) over his support for gun bans. And it wasn't "margin of error" in 2004.

2006, when gun bans were off the table and pro-gun Dems turned the Senate blue, would be a much better template to follow, IMO. The Dems'll-ta­ke-yer-gun­s meme WAS dead, but the DLC just *had* to resurrect it. Apparently DLC strategists think that outlawing protruding rifle handgrips is one of key issues facing the nation.

If you truly consider the gun issue to be so much less important than other issues, then how about we STOP FIGHTING FOR NEW GUN BANS, get the issue off the table, and let the focus return to the issues you *say* you feel are more important.

[Sneaky]

I didn't vote over gun laws. I voted over the other 99.5% of his platform, as you describe, and I could never in good conscience vote for someone like Barack Obama.

(Oh, and check his website; part of that platform includes things all gun owners should worry about, and something that's a part of his platform isn't a "slip-up here or there".)

[Tao21Zen]

"I think it is time for me to bestow my gift of knowledge to you... "

I hope that this "gift" is returnable, because it appears to be quite defective.

----

"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."

What do you mean "mostly"? You either are "the real deal" or you aren't. If you aren't, the question is how far away are you from the real you that you're presenting.

Are you saying that you are willing to overlook the acts and deeds of a man if that man is preaching a message you want to beleive in? That's very elitist of you.

---

"you are the small-minded type who are usually referred to in polls as "margin of error", meaning you really don't matter.

No, we are types willing to cross the political isles for 'the other guy' if he is a far better choice on the issue(s) we care most about.

Keep in wind, between 40%-50% (depending which studies you beleive) of Americans are gun owners. The subset of this group that heavily factors in the RTKBA in their voting is hardly a "margin of error." Gun owners have shown in the past that they/we can change elections (Congress in 96, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Congress in 2006).

[benEzra]

Looking downthread, it appears this has turned into a dicussion of Iraq, surveillance issues, and economic policy, which was neither Mr. Helmke's intention nor mine (and I apologize for my part in getting things off the rails). So here's an attempt to get back on topic.

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

[djkrlsn]

Good points all--the Clinton gun bill made no sense since the firearms that were banned differ only cosmetically from firearms that were not (same action types, ammuniton and magazine sizes), the magazine size limits make no sense (takes seconds to change mags--and there are many people like me that would take a 9 shot 45 (8+1) over an 11 shot 9mm (10+1) of the same size) and full moon clips and stripper clips are a fast way around both. I know I have mentioned the "mad minute" before, and for defensive use a revolver in 45acp/gap, 38 super, 10mm or 9mm using full moon clips has much to recommend it (the basic simplicity an durability of a revolver with extremely fast reloads.

[kaveman1]

Someone has already shown that it's possible to shoot 6 shots out of a revolver, reload and fire 6 more shots in under 3 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y

[molonlabe]

Gun controllers get too bogged down by the gun itself. Gun rights is more about being vehemently opposed to the regulation of ANY inanimate object as a substitue to addressing the complex social problems which are the root cause of crime, which is exactly what gun controllers do. Think of what an arduous task it would be to fix poverty, unemployment, poor parenting, gangs, inadequate social programs, inept government....which is exactly what would need to be done to start addressing the true causes of crime.

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.

[kaveman1]

As I've noted before...

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.

[Ohio9]

The BC suffers from what I call the "Goldylocks syndrome" when it comes to guns. To them, all guns are either too small and concealable or too big and powerful. They can never find the gun that is "just right".

[Ohio9]

The problem with Obama on guns is that he never articulates his position. He just uses broad, unspecified terms that sound really appealing to all, but in reality could mean almost anything. After the Heller verdict he had this to say:

"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.

[LizM]

dj, Third, benEzra, and molonlabe -


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...

[Thirdpower]

With Iraq, there is no ideal solution.

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.

[LizM]

Let me assure you that if Obama wins this thing, Joe Biden will be leading the effort to end the civil war in Iraq or he wouldn't have accepted the role of VP. That is a guarantee that I can make to you...absolutely, positively.

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! :)

[djkrlsn]

Liz--to a great extent it breaks down to the basic idea that the parts of the BOR that you are less enthusiatic about need the same protection of the rights you will not live without. Many people here at Huffington Post raise very valid points about FISA and the Patriot act infringing on the 4th amendment and the need to protect the right to an abortion. The right to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment) and the right to effective self defense (2nd and 9th amendments) are just as much a part of the BOR as freedom of speech and keeping the government from listening to phone conversations and reading mail without the appropriate warrants--and in some ways may be more critical--because if you can be lynched or beaten to death by a mob because you are disarmed by government decree, or you lose your home, business or farm because you cannot defend it (which is a huge reason behind the gun control laws passed in the South aftere the Civil War--namely to keep the former slaves at a major disadvantage). The gun control laws in the South were cast in much the same light as the laws passed in California about 10 years ago that required all handguns to pass special state "safety tests", but after the Civil War--the laws said all handguns had to be the Colt or Remington military revolvers--which the Caucasians already had, but the former slaves could not afford.

[djkrlsn]

In terms of the individual vs collective right--Heller absolutely clarified that--the RKBA is an individual right. If you are unsure about how the militia clause fits in--by the definition in use at the time--if you were eligible to vote, you were either in the organized militia (roughly analagous to the National or state guard) or the unorganized militia--the only real exception is certain government officials and people on active duty in the military or merchant marine (per federal code--17 to 45 year old males who are citizens or have declared their intention to become so--and if you are a vet to age 60). Two other sources--The Federalist Papers (look in the index) and Blackstone's Commentary (which was a standard legal textbook--the relevent edition came out ca 1780). I am giving the references so you can verify without me being able to distort. In terms of the right to effective self defense--you have been reasonable and logical enough so I don't think I need to go into any real justification (it is almost 10pm here)..

[benEzra]

I agree. I've said before that I like Obama, and I voted for him in the primary.

However, if we get more bogged down in Iraq, it will be temporary (Vietnam was). Even if we suffer another Depression, it will be temporary (the last one was). If we lose our gun rights, it will be PERMANENT.

I was a firm supporter of Obama until he picked Biden and the 2008 platform came out calling for new gun bans; now I am undecided whether to vote or just leave that spot on the ballot blank. Biden is pro-usury, pro-repubs­'-bankrupt­cy-"reform­", pro-Survei­llance-Nat­ion, pro-RIAA/DMCA, and has indicated in the past that he will do whatever he can to outlaw half the guns in our family's gun safe, regardless of the political or social consequences. That scares me.

[LizM]

Your description of Biden is ironic. ..."pro-usury" - you gotta be kidding me! "pro-repub­s-bankrupt­cy reform"...­absolutely NOT, but most people don't understand that Senator Biden worked very hard to make important improvements to the bankruptcy bill that was finally passed and was going to pass with or without him by a Republican Congresss (he rejected many previous versions); "pro-Surve­illance-Na­tion" - this is nothing short of laughable.­..seriousl­y! Your fear is misguided and misplaced - take a look at how Bush and Cheney have abused the Patriot Act and the COTUS - that is what should scare you!

[kaveman1]

My problem in general is that when the republicans are in power, they attack certain parts of the Bill Of Rights until we get tired of it and "throw the bums out." Then the Democrats are in power and they attack different parts of the Bill Of Rights until we get tired of it and throw the new bums out.

This cycle is repeated.

What is the one Right which protects all the others?

When one looks at world history, tyrrants and despots the world over must disarm the population before they can have their Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, East Timor, Sudan, Darfur......

The list is long.

[LizM]

All I'm saying is that if McCain/Palin win this thing, then you will have more than your guns and your right to bear arms to worry about.

[LizM]

...continued...

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?

[Thirdpower]

I agree. It is important. I just don't see Obama as the one to bring 'change' that will do any good. His words are just talk that contradict most of what little he's actually done. If he tries to 'talk' to Iran, etc. They're going to laugh at him. He wants to 'tax the rich? They'll just pass it on to the non-rich. All of his social programs? Where is the money going to come from? Oh, right. More taxes.

What he will do to bring 'change' will only leave us with that in our pockets.

[LizM]

...continued...

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.

[LizM]

I have to admit that, during the primaries and even after Senator Obama won the nomination, I was not anywhere near being convinced that he could be the real agent for change. He had demonstrated to me a disingenuousness about the Iraq war, and how we got there, that I could not rise above.

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...

[Berettasskeeter]

As my last post mysteriously disappeard, I'll try it here. Obama does NOT respect the 2d Amendment to the Bill of Rights! He has proven it over and over with his votes, his non-votes, and his efforts. As he does not respect one Amendment, how can anyone claim that he respects ANY portion of the Bill of Rights, hence the Constitution?? As he has not shown such respect, any statements he has made are thereby suspect and should be taken with a large dose of salt.
The 2d Amendment certainly trumps any vote for Obama!
Vote McCain!
Semper fi

[LizM]

Well, I just hope you realize all that John McCain has done to demonstrate that he is no friend of the troops and veterans, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. He should be disqualified from ascending to CIC on that basis alone!

[Daly]

are you faithful that a single president cannot decided to get rid of or alter the constitution? You are using gun rights as an excuse - gosh when was the last time an amendment was changed? I know the GOP wanted to change it so that Arnold S could run for president - aside from that instance you'd be had press to acknowledge a time that the Dems have suggested or requested, implied that the amendment be changes.

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.

[longislandlol]

The scary one on gun law is not so much mac-- but the pistol packin momma he chose

[djkrlsn]

Longisland--since when is supporting the 2nd amendment scary-- it protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. A lawabiding citizen owning and using firearms is exercising CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS just like everyone posting here and why is that scary?

[toochie50]

Why are there a miniscule number of murders in Europe?
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.

[Thirdpower]

"Guns are NOT allowed! period!"

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?

[Ohio9]

Right, we would never have any mass murders without guns.............

...........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.

[Berettasskeeter]

And where did you get the idea that guns are not allowed, period!?? You need to do a better bit of research than that! Most European countries have laws of varying stringency, but the majority DO allow private ownership and possession of firearms, pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Please do a bit of research before you make such silly statements.
Semper fi

[benEzra]

The Swiss can own anything we can in the United States, and a lot of stuff we can't.

Even the UK allows sniper rifles and riot shotguns, just not handguns or autoloading carbines. But their murder rate was lower BEFORE they banned the latter in the 1990's.

[kaveman1]

my god, you couldn't even write two sentences without a flatout lie.

"Why are there a miniscule number of murders in Europe?
Guns are NOT allowed! period!"

You won't survive long here if that's the best you can do.

[loax]

Wow!

[Ohio9]

Obama: "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland."

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.

[whit4brains]

Says you. What proof do you have that gun control advocates want a TOTAL ban on guns? Maybe they just want to make it harder for a criminal to buy a gun like they are saying. I personally don't see why anyone needs an automatic rifle for any reason. Do hunters actually sho.ot deer with AK47's?

[Thirdpower]

Glad to know you're another person who has fallen for the "anything that looks like a machinegun is assumed to be one" lie as perpetuated by the Brady Campaign et al.
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.

[Ohio9]

I see you've memorized the Brady Center theme song, Well done

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.

[benEzra]

"What proof do you have that gun control advocates want a TOTAL ban on guns?"

Control advocates don't want to ban ALL guns. Just the ones they don't like, which happen to be the most popular guns in U.S. homes. They'll "allow" country-club types to keep their expensive skeet guns and high-zoot bolt-actions, which they can use on their expensive hunting leases. It's working-class guns they don't like so much.

I'd point out that the Moral Majority doesn't want to ban all books, either, just the ones they disapprove of. And the anti-abortion folks don't want to ban all abortions, just elective ones.

"I personally don't see why anyone needs an automatic rifle for any reason."

Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934, by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act. You've been had.

The "assault weapon" issue is not about automatic weapons; it is about the most popular NON-automatic target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

"Do hunters actually shoot deer with AK47's?"

No, because actual AK-47's are tightly controlled by Federal law. Non-automatic civilian AK lookalikes are legal for hunting in most states that allow hunting with rifles, but they are just barely powerful enough to hunt deer with.

Hunting is mostly irrelevant; only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97165

[Sneaky]

"Do hunters actually sho.ot deer with AK47's?"

Matter of fact, yes they do. You realize there are only 15 million hunters to 80+ million gun owners, the vast majority of which own no "hunting" weapons, right?

[djkrlsn]

Whit--do not forget there is a difference between what the Brady campaign and its allies want and what they will admit to. They use deceptive terminology and call semi auto only ARs and AKs "assault weapons" to make people who don't know better think they are talking about milspec machine guns. If they get permabans on these, all of a sudden scope mounted deer and target rifles become "sniper rifles" and so on.

[LTinCali]

Obama: "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland." - I read this as the reality of how they are used in rural Ohio vs. Cleveland or the inner city of Los Angeles. Maybe this is because I get what he is saying since I have know people to be killed by AK-47's as well as hand guns and that I know of people who have gotten guns illegally.

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.

[Thirdpower]

"cash of weapons that include mostly assault weapons, AK-47's"

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.

[Ohio9]

The point is that in this nation, we are all supposed to be equal under the law. That means your constitutional right to bear arms applies equally to everyone, regardless of weather or not you live in a city or rural town.

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.

[djkrlsn]

Ltin--just a couple of points--I live in Los Angeles county and when the 1992 riots hit--I was working at a pharmacy right behind the Baldwin Hills mall (staging area for the National guard) and to get home had to drive within blocks of where the riots started. One place where AKs,ARs, and SKSs were used legitimately was to protect Koreatown which survived relatively undamaged while fires raged blocks away. And in terms of why gangbangers and drug dealers have AKs and UZIS-- a major contributing factor is the mainstream media and politicians that support gun control glamourize them--most of my handguns are more powerful than UZIS and while I have a mini14 and an SKS--these two rifles are my lowest power centerfire rifles.

[benEzra]

Less than 3% of murders involve ANY type of rifle, and actual AK-47's are already tightly controlled by Federal law and have been ever since they were invented.

It is not uncommon for the media or political appointees to hype rifle crime in order to (1) push for new bans on the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, or (2) push for budget increases. But rifles of any description are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466
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

[Sneaky]

Would this change if the possession of such weapons were illegal by said persons?

Isn't possession already illegal by said persons...?

[kaveman1]

Hmmm...

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.

[benEzra]

The "assault weapon" issue is NOT about AK-47's and other automatic weapons, which are restricted to police/military (and a few Federally-approved collectors) under Federal law.

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.

[shedances]

It's important to endorse the candidates you believe in; esp. with the general election near ... so I'm very glad to see that the Brady Campaign has come out with a strong & informative endorsement of the Obama-Biden ticket. Good for you, Paul H. & the BC!

[Thirdpower]

Wear warm socks because I completely agree w/ 'shedances'. It's important to recognize Obama's real goals behind the campaign rhetoric.

The Brady Campaign and the AHSA agree, Obama supports 'gun control' in all its facets.

[kaveman1]

let's see.

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?

[djkrlsn]

I hope Paul, Obama, and Biden keep harping on the gun control issue--then we will be sure to see a McCain Palin administration.

[Berettasskeeter]

I too believe that its important to endorse candidates you believe in. I never had any doubts that the Brady bunch believes in Obama etal. But I do appreciate them making it clear. That will, no doubt, help to peel some more votes away from Obama, thankfully!
Semper fi

[Sneaky]

Shocked! Never saw that one coming.