Flip-Flopping, Obama, and Gun Control

Right-wingers are screeching 'FLIP-FLOP!' while leftists are clutching their heads and preparing to vote for Ralph the Nadir. All because Obama is moving to the center. Makes you wonder when this country will grow up.

Sure, I'll miss the old Obama, too. But he's not running against Hillary now. (Will the left subject him to the same sneering viciousness with which they attacked Hillary for doing the same thing? I doubt it somehow). He wants to get elected, not just get his ego stroked. Is his strategy correct? Probably.

As to the flip-flop charge, it feels kind of empty after eight years of 'staying the course' and running the nation into the ground. Personally, I have no respect for anyone who doesn't 'flip-flop' occasionally. I want a president capable of changing his mind, correcting his course when it's headed for an iceberg, learning from mistakes, profiting from feedback. I've had enough of decisive stupidity, of rigidly refusing to respond to reality. I want somebody with flexibility, no matter how much it freaks out the authoritarian personalities in the media.

I'm certainly not crazy about the shifts Obama has made -- I only hope they're tactical and not sincere. But let's face it, we have a two-party system, which forces all candidates toward the center. If we had a multi-party system we could all get exactly the candidates and positions we wanted, but they'd still be forced to compromise with their opponents in order to put together a cabinet. It all comes down to the same thing: it's democracy, which means the voice of everyone, not just the folks you agree with. For us it means including the voices of all those folks still living in the 17th century.

The antipathy to gun control is particularly bothersome. The Supreme Court now says every American has the right to kill people, subject only to certain situational constraints. While Bush and Cheney never cease fear-mongering about terrorist attacks, we already have the equivalent of regular terrorist attacks from deranged gun owners flipping out on their co-workers, bosses, teachers, fellow students, exes, relatives, neighbors, and random strangers.

The NRA keeps saying guns don't kill people, although not even the nuttiest of their fanatics could deny that the presence of guns multiplies deaths. The more guns you have in your house, the more you, some member of your family, or your kid's schoolmates are likely to bite the dust. Sure, people kill people. They do it with knives, pokers, rope, wire, etc. What distinguishes the gun from all these other murder weapons is that while these other implements have other uses, a gun has only a single function: to kill. And it's the most efficient way of doing it. That is, after all, why it was invented.

Rifles are used to kill animals more often than people, and hunting with a rifle is considered a sport. While there isn't all that much skill involved in killing an animal with a high-powered rifle, a case could be made that ridding the nation of its deer and rabbit surplus is serving a useful function.

But all handguns (not to mention grenades, automatic weapons, and other items often possessed by NRA nutcakes) are designed for only one purpose. To kill people. If you own a handgun it's because you want to be able to kill people at will.

Especially yourself. Over half of all gun deaths are suicides. And guns do kill people it turns out, for suicide attempts with guns are 90% successful, compared with 34% for jumping off high places, and 2% for pills. A household with a suicide is 3 to 5 times more likely to have a gun in it.

Gun control doesn't prevent anyone who feels realistically endangered from acquiring the means to kill. All you have to do is make a case and get a license. Unfortunately our nation has a large population of sexually insecure males who like to walk around pretending they're Dirty Harry, and a still larger population of acquisitive status-seekers, terrified someone will steal their future landfill.

The reality is, you're more likely to get killed if you own a gun than if you don't, but maybe that's part of Nature's design.

Comments

[CCW4ME2]

It seems like gun rights are the principal issue separating liberals from libertarians. When it comes to other enumerated and non-enumerated rights they are pretty much on the same side. If you want the government to stay out of your bedroom shouldn't you want the government to stay out of my gun cabinet too?

[truthynesslover]

I used to be staunchly anti gun ownership until the L.A.riots where I lived.My house was one door away from the looters and people burning down buildins.My neighbor had a gun and we sat in his house till the national guard came to the rescue.I was greatful for his protection because we didnt know if or when they would start down our street.That experience opened my eyes as to why one may need a gun to protect themselves.

[djkrlsn]

I was working at a pharmacy on Santa Rosalia (right behind the Baldwin Hills mall) at the time of the riots so I remember them well. That is one reason why I oppose gun control.

[DonCosenza]

Thankfully, Obama has never expressed the ridiculous positions that Slater does here. Here's a few gems:

"The Supreme Court now says every American has the right to kill people, subject only to certain situational constraints."

This comment is just hyperbole. Go read even a basic synopsis of the decision.

"While there isn't all that much skill involved in killing an animal with a high-powered rifle.."

Most hunting does not use a high-powered rifle (depending on your definition of "high-powered"). I consider 'high-powered' to be more along the lines of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. Not very common for hunting, but shooting game from a mile away certainly involves some skill.

"Gun control doesn't prevent anyone who feels realistically endangered from acquiring the means to kill. All you have to do is make a case and get a license."

Under the DC gun ban, all handguns acquired since 1975 were banned in DC, and longguns had to be kept in a disabled state. So, yes, following the letter of the DC law, one actually was prevented from acquiring the means to kill (using a firearm, at least).

"The reality is, you're more likely to get killed if you own a gun than if you don't..."

Excluding suicide (which I concede is more likely to be fatal if the person has a gun) this statement is without basis. Statistics show that homicide rates are relatively unaffected by one's gun ownership status.

[Mike088]

Well, since I can't argue with the "journalist" who wrote this piece, I will have to be content as a Dirty Harry impersonator. Its really not so bad though, exercising an American right to keep and bear arms feels great.

Freedom is great, real freedom not the liberal interpretation of it which is GOGO GOVERNMENT!

My pistols must not be working right, since they haven't killed anything yet. Maybe I need to call up the manufacture and ask for a replacement.

Oh well, cya later -

Mike/Dirty Harry

[djkrlsn]

All of my firearms have the same major malfunction-=not a single one of them has gone out and killed anyone in the last 20 years.

[emcd]

I disagree with your characterization.

I have totally changed my thinking on the 2nd amendment over the past 7 years. I agree with the SCOTUS ruling because I believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. I also have come to see that there is real danger that an unarmed citizenry could be overwhelmed by an extremeist regime (like Bush/Cheney) or a heavily armed militia (like Blackwater). I used to think the extreme right were nuts, but now that the shoe's on the other foot, I don't think so anymore!

Having said that, though, it is clear to me that STATE governments should have the right--and the responsibility--to impose licensing or registration restrictions on guns CONSISTENT WITH THEIR LOCAL CONDITIONS, just as they do with licensing automobiles or granting marriage licenses.

I believe Obama has the correct and well-reasoned opinion and the constitution on his side on this one.

[Sneaky]

Blackwater is NOT a "militia" in any sense of the word. You and I, however, are. I'd really like to know what people's beef is with Blackwater, because I'm getting the feeling it's just one more thing to bash without knowing anything about it...

[Bostonterrier97]

The "Militia" is defined by the Militia Act: which stipulates that there are 2 classes of Militia:
(a.) Organized Militia
(b.) Unorganized Militia
Individuals who are NOT members of the Armed forces nor members of the National Guard nor members of an Naval Militia, nor members of an State Self Defense Force (Organized Militia): are by default: Members of the Unorganized Militia.

This means that Joe Six Pack is in the Unorganized Militia.

Black Water is an example of an Unorganized Militia. And as such they are subject to being called up by a State Government (where they are headquartered) and reclassified as an Organize Militia subject to a State Governments Control.

Any Organized Militia can be placed under further control by being called up by the Federal Government and subject to the UCMJ.

Thats how it works kiddies.

[Bostonterrier97]

Then by your logic State and Local Governments should have the right to regulate and license journalists who are engaging in their 1st Amendment Right. In fact they should be able to do this to ANY Right.

The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the 14th Amendment.
You are also confused over the differences between a Privilege vs a Right.
A Privilege is something GRANTED by a Government. For example: DRIVING is a PRIVILEGE.
A Right is a LIMITATION on Governmental Power. The Government does NOT GRANT Rights. As Rights are Pre-Existing and belong to the individual and limit the scope of Government.

SINCE the court has correctly determined that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL Right, a State or Local Government has NOT authority to Regulate or deny an individual this Right. To do so would be in violation of the 14th Amendment. And it establish a particularly dangerous precedent where State and Local Governments can deny any Constitutional Right to an Individual.

Sorry...but the proverbial "Genie is out of the Bottle". And the Collectivist Right Argument in regards to the Second Amendment is DEAD.

[CanisLatrans]

Mr. Slater, you make quite a blanket accusation-- that everyone who owns a gun is a murderer waiting for the chance to strike.

I'd say burden of proof is on you, sir, to back that up with actual evidence.

Get cracking.

[texanna]

While I am concerned about lots of Milita's of One running around with concealed weapons, I am far more concerned about the re-positioning of Sen. Obama with regards my 4th amendment right and how the Bushies and the Telecoms have shredded it starting WAYYY before everything changed due to 9/11. I am also really concerned about Sen. Obama continuing with the infusion of the religious community into my government. I'm beginning to wonder what Constitution Sen. Obama was lecturing on when he was at Univ of Chicago.

[djkrlsn]

Texana--it has been well documented for years that concealed carry of handguns reduces crime--so your concerns about "militias of one" are overblown

[texanna]

Really?! Could you provide me with some statistics to back up your assertion, please? Because, I don't remember any big touting of lower crime statistics in the major urban areas of Texas since we got our conceal carry law enacted.

[WorkingClass]

"Will the left subject him to the same sneering viciousness with which they attacked Hillary for doing the same thing"?

I sincerely hope so.

[Berettasskeeter]

Most of you have never researched Obama's time in Chicago, and he hasn't really advertised that he was foursquare in opposition to handgun ownership, opposed any attempts to liberalize (little L) Illinois' firearms laws, and favors expanding the so-called Assault Weapons Ban to include most of our popular hunting and sporting firearms. If you are a dyed-in-the-wool gunner, you cannot support such a Marxist.
Semper fi

[MelloY]

It's a good thing that the President has little control over state gun regulations then.

[djkrlsn]

And after Heller--DC, Chicago and NYC style gun control will become things of the past--and if Fenty keeps giving the Supreme Court the finger--it will happen faster.

[MelloY]

What a poor article. You start off talking about Obama flip-flopping and then show no evidence at all that he's done it. You just go off on a rant about your feelings on gun control.

Here's a quote in your article: "Gun control doesn't prevent anyone who feels realistically endangered from acquiring the means to kill. All you have to do is make a case and get a license."

Well then, why the rant? The SCOTUS ruling Obama agreed with states that guns can be regulated. Hell, even Scalia agreed with that. The problem was that the DC law kept people from making that case and keeping a handgun in their home in any condition to use it.

Overall, I have never understood why so many of the left are so intent on harsh gun controls. For a group that's generally against many of the government's attempts to reduce personal freedoms, to hang your hat on removing this personal freedom that's clearly protected by the 2nd amendment seems hypocritical and stupid. If the left would drop this one thing, they could form a colilition with moderates and the more libertarian right that could win them elections for years to come. Then they could pass some of their social programs that would probably have more of an effect on the violent crime numbers than any gun regulation that they could legally pass.

[truthsforsaken]

And here I thought I was the only one with the common sense to know that any freedoms granted are freedoms that should be protected.

I wrote in a song...

I see this virus spreading, like a wildfire:
We honor nothing but ourselves turning a blind eye to all else.
I see this virus spreading, like a wildfire:
How then would you suggest we fight, when we've lost all of our rights?

[CCW4ME2]

Why is it "liberal" to favor abortion rights and also "liberal" to oppose our Second Amendment rights? Don't abortions kill more people than guns do?

[truthsforsaken]

depends on your definition of a person.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you--but that would be the contention between the two.

[smokepole]

The definition of a person defense is so lame it is laughable. Many liberals want to extend the right to life to animals, which canot ever be persons, yet a fetus is not a person.

[djkrlsn]

That contradiction also confuses me, since most liberals would agree that even animals have the right to self defense--and it makes no sense to insist that a small statured victim has the right to get in a fist fight with someone that can hospitalize Mike Tyson in his prime. There are quite a few times were abortion makes sense (severely disabled fetus, mother's health would be adversely affected, the pregnancy is a result of rape/incest), but I am uncomfortable when abortion is used as a form of birth control instead of condoms or contraceptives (especially if the pregnancy is at the stage that the baby would be able to survive (premature birth)).

FOr me, gun control that is designed to disarm felons and those who are mentally ill(by restricting lawful purchase and increasing time in prison for using a gun in crime) make sense, disarming lawabiding citizens and banning firearms designs that are rarely used in crime don't make sense

[noneIn2008]

There is no sincerity in politics. Everything is opportunistic depending upon which way the wind blows. Did you know Obama is a lifetime member of the NRA? He fondly remembers hunting with us uncle in the wilds of Kansas. Newspeak is possible for any issue.

[KMan1]

I think you are getting your views on gun control and Obama's confused. He didn't flip on anything.

[vernonbc]

You're exactly right KMan. You'd think if someone was going to go to the trouble of writing and posting a whole article on a subject, they'd do some basic research and learn what Obama's record on guns has been all along. It hasn't changed.

[djkrlsn]

You are correct--Obama still favors DC and Chicago style gun bans

[Ferdberfle]

Obama doesn't flip-flop, change his mind, pander, etc.,--he just lies. So much for the vaunted change he was supposed to bring about. He will go the way of the democrats' other stellar nominees such as Kerry, Dukakis, Stevenson, Mondale, Humphrey, and McGovern. This democrat of 32 years became independent when it was apparent that the party was yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Oh and good luck convincing Sen. Clinton's supporters to come along for yet another ride headlong off the cliff up on the far left.

[donkat]

We have guns in our home - my husband comes from rural culture where everyone has a gun or shotgun. I used to argue with him about having them, even though we do have a gun safe and lock them up whenever we have guests, always around children. Philosophically, we were polar opposites. He is a democrat who gave up his membership to the NRA when they supported Bush! That was too much for him to stand.

Over the past 8 years, I've come to understand why responsible gun ownership isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, there have been times when I expected the right wingers to declare a dictatorship and tear up the Constitution (they shredded it). Just let them try that when people like my husband own the means to protect us. I'm less fearful of a terrorist attack than the attacks that have come to us from Washington. And, it won't be over when Bush leaves office - we have financed a well armed militia - Blackwater - and they have no allegiance to our country or its citizens. Their allegiance lies with the one who pays them and Eric Prince is a right wing ideologue.

In a perfect world, no one would want a gun. In this world, it isn't always the nut jobs who have guns but many people like my husband - blazing smart, level headed, able to reason and non violent. In this world, I understand why such people choose to have

[trubski]

I own a bunch of guns which I hunt with, shoot targets with, or simply enjoy owning because they came from my family or have memories associated with them. I've never shot a person, shot at a person or realistically anticipate shooting at a person and I do not own guns because I want to shoot at people - any people.

Most gun owners I know think of their firearms more or less the same way I do. The author of this article is a moron speaking from nothing but ignorance and blind prejudice.

I should also mention I am a lifelong progressive Democrat who agrees wholeheartedly with donkat that - in this world - allowing only creeps like Blackwater to have firearms would be a terribly costly mistake.

I'll keep my guns, thank you.

[Sneaky]

"Creeps like Blackwater"? Explain please.

[seatea1967]

Nicely said.