Obama and America: "Doing The Gun Dance"

Robert Novak has an interesting piece in today's Washington Post about Sen. Barack Obama and the Second Amendment case from DC.

If Senator Obama is "doing the gun dance," then he's in step with most of the American people. A recent poll by the Washington Post indicated that while 72% felt the Second Amendment provided an "individual right," 59% also supported gun restrictions as strong as those in the District of Columbia. The crucial issue to be faced after the Supreme Court announces its decision in the D.C. v. Heller case is what reasonable restrictions will meet Constitutional muster in the future.

It says something about the current state of the politics of gun control that all three remaining presidential candidates favor reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Senator Obama, for example, supports banning assault weapons, opposes the Tiahrt restrictions against sharing crime gun trace data, supports limiting handgun purchases to one per month, and supports closing the gun show loophole. (Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain also supports requiring criminal background checks by unlicensed dealers at gun shows).

As for the next primary state, Pennsylvania, the state with supposedly the highest per capita NRA membership, gun control supporters regularly win there statewide: Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore (against strong NRA opposition) in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004.

Even more telling, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell -- someone who just two years ago said, "I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control" -- has won two gubernatorial elections against NRA-endorsed opponents, beating Mike Fisher in 2002 by nine points and Lynn Swann in 2006 by 20 points.

Support for common sense gun control should be a vote-winning issue for most candidates.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Melodyl]

Great points about “Dial A Prayer” AKA 911, and pray the police arrive. As far as police having no duty to protect, two cases have been cited but there are many more. (Take notes Paul).

Riss v. City of New York,
Thurman v. City of Torrington,
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas,

Paul and the rest of the Anti- Bill of Rights crew feel you should hide and call. According to USA today and the New York Times, this is what you have to look forward to. New York City. 11.2 minutes to 19.2 minutes. Fresno, Ca. 22 minutes 11 seconds.

People understand, Paul is a politician he would not need to wait, but should you not have the same clout you are taking your chances.

Thank you Paul, for caring so much, many people would still be alive today if Paul, Josh and a few other would care a little less.

~M~

[ebaLnoloM]

Amazingly, for as many times as I have watched this video, I still cannot find the "Streets Running Red With Blood(tm)" or any "Dangerous Crossfire(­tm)."

What I DO find, is a law-abiding woman with a concealed carry permit, exercising discretion, confidence, and and understanding of the true implications of choosing to arm yourself for protection.

And even more amazingly, the media covered it.

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/17448339.html?video=YHI&t=a

[ebaLnoloM]

Paul Helmke used the term "Judicial Activism(tm)" in a Brady Bunch blog a while back to describe what he felt, was the 2-1 DC circuit Court's decision to find DC's gun ban unconstitutional. He felt that "Judicial Activism(tm)" was the Courts's decision which defied the "Will of the People(tm)­."

I'm wondering if Paul Helmke would also acknowledge the "Political Activism" happening in Philadelphia?

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a3_gunlaws.6355574apr11,0,796937.story

Clearly, the "Will of the People" speaks loud and clear in Pennsylvania in that frivilous and ineffective gun control measures do not pass. So Philadelphia, you know, had to illegally pass gun laws which contradict PA's preemption.

How 'bout it, Paul? Care to weigh in? Kelli? Solitude? Anyone?

[MSorgy]

Jason:

If you are out there, you might be interested in this Supreme court case that held the police had no obligation to protect the plantiff (a child physically abused by his father to the point of brain damage).

DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Held:

Respondents' failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father's violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 194-203.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189

The police, in most cases, do not have a legal obligation to protect us.

Michael

[ladyshooter]

I also believe there was a case, involving Washington, DC. The court ruled the city did not have an obligation to provide protection, or even respond in a timely manner to a '911' call.

It may have taken the police about 45 minutes, to respond to a 911 call, where the people were known to be in imminent danger. Needless to say, the people were thoroughly victimized, by the time the DC police finally got around to getting there.

People do not have the luxury of waiting 45 minutes for the police to arrive, when faced with a criminal assault. If they want to live, they will need to take defensive action immediately. That does not mean screamin, or blowing a whistle.

[MSorgy]

ladyshooter:

You may be thinking about Warren vs D.C. Their 911 call apparently got lost in the shuffle.

http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

Michael

[Melodyl]

72% felt the Second Amendment provided an "individual right,)
Wow Paul I am shocked you actually quoted something not conjured up and regurgitated by the Joyce Foundation, "be still my beating heart". But you had to go and screw it up by blathering praises upon the arguably worst Governor that Pennsylvania has ever had to endure.

You go onto a spiel about the wonders of the Klintons, Al Bore, and the Little Marxist Obama. What you seem to have conveniently left out was all the voter irregularities in Philadelphia. But whats another lie to the Notorious Brady Campaign. Whats your slogan "It's OK to lie as long as you don't use dirty words" Yea that about covers it right Paul?

[benEzra]

What is with your continued obsession with outlawing popular rifles? Rifles aren't a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

Rifles rank dead last in the FBI murder statistics, not only behind blunt objects, knives, and shotguns, but even behind SHOES AND BARE HANDS.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders...­..........­..........­.....14,86­0.....100.­00%
Handguns..­..........­..........­..........­..7,543...­...50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....­1,954.....­.13.15%
Edged weapons...­..........­..........­......1,91­4......12.­88%
Firearms (type unknown)..­..........­.......1,5­98......10­.75%
Shotguns..­..........­..........­..........­....517...­....3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.......­..........­....892...­....6.00%
Rifles....­..........­..........­..........­....442...­....2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders...­..........­..........­.....14,99­0.....100.­00%
Handguns..­..........­..........­..........­..7,795...­...52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....­2,158.....­.14.40%
Edged weapons...­..........­..........­......1,82­2......12.­15%
Firearms (type unknown)..­..........­.......1,4­65.......9­.77%
Shotguns..­..........­..........­..........­....481...­....3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.......­..........­....833...­....5.56%
Rifles....­..........­..........­..........­....436...­....2.91%

Outlawing the most popular civilian rifles in America, when rifles are so rarely misused, is hardly "reasonable gun control."

[shedances]

What are you talking about here? The BC never said to outlaw popular rifles. Where the heck are you coming up with that idea? Are you talking about debates regarding "assault rifles" specifically, Ben?

K

[fishyjay]

I don't know what Ben is talking about, but the BC has certainly supported outlawing popular rifles.

The 1994 assault weapon ban specifically exempted over 650 hunting rifles and shotguns, and most gun control advocates including the BC often invoked that exemption to promote the ban and said that they would not ban popular hunting guns. But most gun control advocates including the BC then turned around and supported the 2003 attempt to REVOKE the exemption list of 650 hunting rifles and shotguns and to specifically ban guns on that list (HR2038 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy D-NY, Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003).

[shedances]

Ben ~ I looked over your numbers. Sad to see so much violence against others. However, I still strongly believe that people in this country can find a reasonably satisfying & just way to 'coexist peacefully' in their communities ... without so much gun violence or so many guns.

Kelli

[Thirdpower]

Maybe you should present that message to Chicago and Cook county which accounts for 70% of Illinois murders yet only 40% of the population.

And the strict gun laws are where?

[benEzra]

You and I, and I'm sure everyone here, are all on the same side as far as wanting to end violence against the innocent.

As I've written at length elsewhere, there IS common ground to be found. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people grieve and anger me just as much as they grieve and anger you. We ALL agree that bad guys shouldn't have them. It's not "any and all guns" that are involved in criminal mayhem (and it's certainly not "assault weapons"); it's actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few.

The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (AWB, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on good people (including my wife and I) in order to affect the bad guys (so you hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

Personally, I think the NICS point-of-sale background check is a good thing, and I am OK with it. I am not, however, OK with banning "assault weapons" or draconian capacity restrictions.

[ladyshooter]

I dislike violence, but I also realize: Pacifism does not work. The reason pacifism does not work, is there are predators, call them violent criminals, tin pot dictators, megalomaniacs, etc., who have no desire to respect the rights of others. That leaves the honest people, in the position of having to defend themselves, a situation they would much rather avoid.

Shooters are by nature, very social. The group, with whom I shoot, are men and women, with whom I work. We have a lot of fun at the matches. We do engage in some good-natured ribbing back and forth between us. No one has ever gotten angry. In fact, we all see the banter as a form of camaraderie.

[Thirdpower]

SF gun ban dead:

The California State Supreme Court has ruled that Proposition H, the gun ban proposed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors violates California law. This exhausts all possible avenues for appeal by the Board of Supervisors. Proposition H would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco.

[qdemn7]

"Reasonable restrictions" on guns is like "reasonable restrictions" on abortion. Both are simply an incremental effort to prohibit those things not politically capable of outright prohibition. So those of you for whom the right to choose is important should remember this point.

Helmke and fellow anti-gun travelers view DC Gun law as a "reasonable restriction". They view bans on semi-automatic weapons as "reasonable restrictions". So taking those bans into account that leaves only manually operated pump, bolt action, single or double barrel long guns as being permitted. So if they get their bans passed, then as soon as there is a "rampage" with a pump or bolt action gun, the calls for those "reasonable restrictions" of banning those will arise. Then thew same thing will happen with double barrel guns, then finally single shot, until there are no guns left.

And don't give me any rhetoric about hunters. There are 80 million guns owners in this country today, and only 15 million register hunters. In other words 80% of American gun owners do not hunt. The all don;t own those guns for collecting or target shooting, they own them for self-defense. And there are plenty of progressives who want to ban hunting, also.

I don't trust a thing Helmke, or any gun prohibitionist says, not a one.

[Sneaky]

"...Both are simply an incremental effort to prohibit those things not politically capable of outright prohibitio­n."

That is a very good point and a very accurate description. You don't mind if I use that in the future, do you?

[qdemn7]

No at all, feel free to use it.

Unfortunately that phrase doesn't just apply to guns or abortion, it applies to tobacco and alcohol as well. In fact, anything viewed as a "sin" by some is certain to be banned if they can do so. If it can't be banned, then the incremental approach is the next approach tried. If that doesn't work then they try achieving through the courts, what they can't achieve through the legislative process.

As the evil Union Redleg Officer said in "The Outlaw Josey Wales" ....."Doin good ain't got no end."

[mike101]

Brady Campaign denied permit to protest by VA Tech.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.a...4-08-0119.html

Well, it looks as if the world's best known vicitim disarmament zone doesn't want to permit the BC to exploit the anniversary of the VA Tech. tragedy , by statgng one of there nonsensical "lie ins".

Permit Denied !!!

[ladyshooter]

The Brady Campaign and their paid demonstrators are planning to run a protest at Virginia Tech, in spite not having a permit. That makes their planned exploitation, of the tragedy, an unlawful demonstration.

What does that mean? The Brady Campaign is a bunch of law breakers.

[mike101]

Sorry. I don't know what happened with that link. Try again.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-04-08-0119.html

[fishyjay]

"Lie-in"? What's different about a lie-in?

I have found that most gun control advocates lie almost every time that they speak.

[mike101]

'Almost everything that they told me turned out to be a lie."
"I have found that most gun control advocates lie almost every time that they speak."

You have learned well, grasshopper. Get used to it.

You should peruse the Brady Campaign website sometime. See what they have to say about "assault rifles". Keep in mind that 'rifles', in general, are used in about 2.9% of all crimes involving guns.

If you're in need of a good laugh, read the Joyce Foundation-funded "study", that claims college people who own guns are more likely to abuse drugs, and exhibit various other criminal behaviors , than non-gun owning college people.

[Thirdpower]

How do the Brady's get bills passed in IL? By lying about them. Here's the synopsis for the current unenforceable magazine ban:

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the sexual exploitation of children.

Wait,that has nothing to do w/ firearm magazines. But the amendment does:

Senate Floor Amendment No. 1
Deletes reference to:
720 ILCS 5/11-9.1
Adds reference to:
720 ILCS 5/24-1.8 new

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

Kelli. Do you support tactics like these?

[ebaLnoloM]

While gun control advocates like to blame political agenda for the "Gun Control Dance" (and in part, it is), I look at it as a microcosm of society as a whole finally starting to challenge the force-fed "guns are bad" rhetoric. The Heller case has certainly revived the 2A debate resulting in alot of fence-sitters being exposed to BOTH sides of the argument. It has exposed many of the lies and distortions being spread by the gun control platform. The evolution of violence in society today is causing more people to think about self protection. Knowledge is power.

Politicians are simply feeling the shifting tide of the gun control debate and being forced to represent their positions accordingly. The reason why the Democratic frontrunners are being seen as "wavering" in their gun control positions is because it's becoming more andmore difficult to justify a position which does not help to solve society's criome problem.

You can see this evidenced by the January '08 to March '08 comparison in the same DC polls which Paul himself references.

[Sneaky]

Excellent timing to mention that...

http://media1.pahousegop.com/video/asx_generator.asp?videoname=170204423.wmv

Five minutes in, and about 15 minutes long, Alan Keys speaks of the Second Amendment. I don't like most of his other policies, but damn if he didn't get this one right.

[shedances]

Eba ~ I'm afraid you've got this reversed ... gun control advocates & organizations have tried very hard to keep these issues 'on the front page' so-to-speak, in order to raise public awareness & involvement in U.S. gun politics. Moreover, you certainly don't have all the answers to "solve society's crime problem" (no one does). Gun control advocates are concerned with the ROLE that guns & firearms play in our society ~ as all of us should be, IMO.

K

[Sneaky]

Does a mother care whether her child was shot or stabbed to death? If you feel they do, may I direct you to the mother who lost a daughter at a school in the last year to a madman with a knife, so you can tell her, "At least she wasn't shot"?

That you attack tools instead of root causes because you don't know the root causes is a pitiful excuse bordering on willful ignorance. Toughen up sentences for crimes, stop coddling criminals and letting them off on plea bargains (if they committed a crime, they committed a crime), and on the macro scale promote better fiscal policies within government and promote policies that would muzzle the Federal Reserve and preserve the value of the dollar, and you'll find much of crime will decrease. Crime will never disappear, though. I wish you could realize that.

[dragn1]

yep Obama and Clinton are sure speaking up on gun control measures. Dems are running from gun control like the plague on the national level. They lost 30 seats in 94 and lost the 2000 election because of it. They are still staunch anti gun rights but they only whisper that when with their kind.( liberal gun hating wackos) so no one else can hear.

[shedances]

I think Novak's got the senator all wrong. Dance or no dance, the fact is Sen. Obama's never been shy about expressing his views in support of gun control measures; & I daresay he's probably more aware of the reality of lives lost to guns & violence in this country than is Bob Novak. The SC case is one in which just about everyone is (anxiously) awaiting how the Court will weigh the 2nd Amendment purpose/in­tent/wordi­ng; & I'm sure that Sen. Obama is closely following this hot political issue, too. He's said probably all he reasonably can on it, for the time being.

Good blog, Paul & BC.

K

[edutilos]

Princess, you know that you and I see to eye-to-eye (no reference to the last PH blog)on 99 percent of the issues, but I have to ask, only because I can see it quite clearly, which means that the pro-gun pariahs waiting most certainly will see this...

Are we seeing a flood of Mr. Helmke's blog/voice as a means to distract away from other issues concerning our Nation. I ask this sincerely, given that you seem to be the most level-headed of the bunch, but really...p­aint? Even I had a hard time swallowing that pill a few posts ago. This again, looks to be a blog more about "how many I different directions I can go than any substantive argument in any of them". Just asking?

I could've thrown-up the 100 words posted here after a hard night of drinking and not really though they would matter. What gives? No matter, I wait with bated breath for your words of wisdom and wise direction.­..

solitude

[ebaLnoloM]

"Are we seeing a flood of Mr. Helmke's blog/voice as a means to distract away from other issues concerning our Nation. I ask this sincerely, given that you seem to be the most level-headed of the bunch, but really...p­aint? Even I had a hard time swallowing that pill a few posts ago. This again, looks to be a blog more about "how many I different directions I can go than any substantive argument in any of them". Just asking?

For once, solitude, I completely agree with you.

[shedances]

Hi Solitude ~ I didn't forget you ... just had a busy few days taking an asthmatic daughter to the ER (ugh). But it's getting more sane now & I'm a little more rested (at least, for the time being LOL).

Let's see, on your first query regarding Paul Helmke's topics as "a means to distract away from other issues concerning our Nation," I certainly don't think so ... he's not single-minded, in my view. If anything, he'll keep our proverbial noses-to-t­he-grindst­one (so to speak); so that we don't get distracted and stop working on this important issue of guns & gun violence, IMHO.

On the earlier topic of painting schemes on firearms ... I think the BC is addressing a concern brought to them (perhaps, by those in law enforcement), which is what they need to do. When I was working as a metro reporter & stationed in one of Chicago's area police stations, I saw & heard a lot ... much more than what goes into the news everyday. I trust Paul Helmke & the Brady Campaign. They have their good reasons for why they bring up so many issues related to guns & firearms in this country.

BTW, I adore your dry wit & sarcasm here (ie., "bated breath ... ha, ha). You sure know to put a grin on my face, even when I'm exhausted. Take care & chat with you later!

Kelli

[shedances]

A quick sidenote: One area we will have to 'agree to disagree' is on Sen. Obama, Solitude. As you can tell, I like him and his past gun control stance ... he's also been a fine & decent politician in my homestate; and I have little doubt that he would make an excellent future president (though I do still like Hillary Clinton quite a bit, and have been torn between the two individual­s...). So, anyway, people can't always agree on everything eh. That's what makes life sooooo interesting!

Catch you later,

Kelli

[ladyshooter]

Robert Novak is completely on target. Obama will say anything to get elected. Don't worry, Hillary will also say anything to get elected. It is typical of a lot of politicians. That is the source of many grave doubts about their character and integrity (perhaps it would be more appropriate to talk about their lack of integrity and lack of character).

[mike101]

"The Constitution refers to "arms", period. Did they mean that to include "explosives"? Perhaps an historian can weigh in."

As Sneaky explained very eloquently in the last thread, we're talking about arms for personal defense. Nukes, chemical weapons, RPG's, SKUD Missiles, etc., really don't qualify. The militia is entitled to the same arms as "issued to the common soldier". Nowadays, that would be the M-16. The common soldier does not carry the aforementioned weapons. Too heavy.

[Sneaky]

Actually, if I may specify, the constitution is not limiting our right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense only. It is protecting our right to keep and bear arms so that we, the people, may always be an effective militia, among other things. It is vague and open ended because the Framers didn't realize how uneducated our country would become in literature, and how much we would come to accept limits on our rights. Arms is very general, and applies to any arms which can be kept and borne. That's most of 'em.

For personal defense, yes, I absolutely agree with you (although I think in reality it's the M4, as more are fielded than M16s now). For constitutional history purposes, our right to keep and bear all arms that CAN be kept and borne are protected. I can make a very strong argument for the keeping and bearing of shoulder-fired explosive devices (LAWs, RPG-7s, etc.), especially because it is perfectly in keeping with the historical idea of throwing off an unlawful or tyrannical government or repelling a foreign military. Apparently the law of the land agrees, as there are "surprisingly" few limits on what types of arms, among those listed, may be kept by We The People.

[Thirdpower]

Yep, that gun control supporting PA,
The house voted 200 to 0 supporting the removal or restrictions allowing CCW in State Parks and forbidding firearm confiscations during an emergency while increasing penalties on actual criminals instead of the people Paul keeps trying to make into criminals.

[mike101]

This is the land of the "free people accross the Delaware" I'd heard spoken of in whispers, when I was a child here in New Jersey.

[edutilos]

...during the Revolution, mikey? Perhaps it's time to rethink your position, after say, 2 or 3 hundred years! Just Wow!!!

[DMeadows]

See? We told you so. Helmke and the BC support gun bans. There's never been a restriction, infringment, or ban they've not supported. And they never fail to wade neck deep through all the pro-gun polls to grasp at one or two with something that seems to fit their agenda.

Does Helmke really want to get into what polling tells us about how people feel about their gun rights versus his gun-control ideology? I don't think he does, if he's rational. Oh, wait . . .