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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Leftist? What exactly is "leftist"?
Obama has been consistent on gun control. To listen to his position go to the following video at about 4:10. This is taken from the last Philly Debate
OBAMA vs CLINTON Philly Debate pt.10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m-w5PvOPVU&feature=related
I dont understand the flip flopping charge Obama's position has always been nuanced and complex I guess the simple minded didnt figure it out. But I dont get this flip flop not even on Public financing. Its the same position. You know I thought we were ready for a president like Obama but I'm starting to see we are not. You need to be able to understand his position to appreciate what makes his leadership so special. I just think we are not smart enough to get it.
Carol
I completely agree. I often think America doesn't deserve such an intelligent thoughtful person as Obama for president. The media certainly doesn't have the smarts to keep up with him.
Sorry, but I have to make a pro-gun case.
First, your statement that "The Supreme Court now says every American has the right to kill people, subject only to certain situational constraints." is ridiculous, unless you equate self defense to randomly killing people.
The easiest to make is the reason we are called the United States of America instead of the United States of England. But there are a lot of people....in the millions, now, who have carried a firearm for the protection of other Americans and as Patriots in the Military service. May father was in WWI And WWII. I served in Viet-Nam, in combat, and as a police officer and investigator as my career. I have seen what people do to unarmed victims, and you can go to the library and check out a Forensics primer by Turvey. It has pictures, and if one of those victims were your wife or child, you wouldn't be quite so quick to disarm free citizens.
For you to equate the liklihood of owning a firearm with having a firearm incident in your home is equivalent to saying the more likely you are to own a car, the more likely you will be hit by a drunk driver. It's a pathetic argument.
To add to your point, the fact is where there is "right to carry" crime goes down. There are a large number of studies that have proven this over and over. DC is one of the cases where gun crime increased inversely with the strictness of gun control.
You are so wrong noneIn2008. DC's crime rate and murders have been going down year after year.
Don't any of you gun lovers ever stop and think about the large number of studies that show the U.S. has a ridiculous rate of gun deaths compared to every other civilized nation in the world? The most children killed by guns? The most suicides by guns? Other countries manage to live perfectly happy and safe and lawful lives without guns being carried by everyone.
Obama never flip-flopped on gun control. I think he considers the gun control argument to be a "wedge issue" distraction that is dividing the country (and serving as election ammo for the GOP). He has always been about defusing those types of issues by looking for common ground between the two sides. He said this back in May:
"I just got back from Montana where just about everyone has guns. In that culture, fathers and sons bond over hunting. You can't take that away from rural America. But the inner city is different, and we should tighten the laws on gun purchases and close the loopholes in gun show sales to unscrupulous buyers. The gun control people and the right to bear arms people are talking past each other about disconnected topics."
And now he says this:
"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
Sounds pretty similar to me.
What an intelligent and thoughtful man. America needs him as president so badly.
I don't know who you are, but I love you for what you say. Let's all get together and become Americans again, without hate or rancour.
Thanks.
Saying my rights vary depending on where I am (inner-city or rural), that we need to close a mysterious "gun show loophole" (Go ahead folks, try to define it), and pounding the "common sense" meme without a lot to offer sounds pretty dumb to me.
Wow. It's not often I read such an ignorant, uninformed post on this excellent site.
"The Supreme Court now says every American has the right to kill people, subject only to certain situational constraints." What an intellectually dishonest thing to say. To say that the right to own a gun is the same as the right to kill people is a huge insult to the intellgence of every reader here who either does (or should) know better.
"A gun has only a single function: to kill." Also ridiculous. My guns have never killed anyone. They have, however, participated in any number of target practice activities. There are literally thousands of different types of target, skeet, trap and other non-lethal activities in which firearms are used.
"If you own a handgun it's because you want to be able to kill people at will." Ridiculous. See above.
"Especially yourself. " Yes... the reason I have a handgun is becaues I want to kill myself. </sarcasm> Ridiculous.
Either you're completely ignorant and have no business talking about this subject, or you're completely intellectually dishonest (i.e. lying to make your point) in which case you have no business talking about this subject.
I was drafted into the German army. The one and only use attributed to any gun there is to kill people. When you train with a rifle they will tell you to shoot at the head of the target. Why? Because the chances of hitting the head of a soldier who is opposite of you on the ground are much higher than that of a lethal hit of his hidden body. And a hit to the head is almost always lethal. And that is the only thing you really want. You want the enemy dead. There is no other way in war to be safe. None.
Moving objects: hit anywhere. If you can. Only recommended if you have a machine gun. But with that it's almost a no-brainer.
Pistol? Hitting something with a pistol is a matter of luck, except in close quarters. And the only targets supplied are shaped like people, again.
If you were ever to hit a live animal with a military weapon in service, the consequences would be unimaginable in the German army. You wouldn't want to be alive to go through that process.
What else are guns good for? Cracking peanuts, maybe. Any other use as a tool will most likely destroy the gun pretty much forever.
So between killing people and opening peanuts, I guess the generally accepted use of a gun is... to kill people. Prove me otherwise, if you can.
You mean my dozen or so guns--not one of which has ever killed anyone--are defective?
As a proud gun owner and gun rights advocate who has no wish to ever kill anyone, I KNOW that ownership of guns--including handguns and so-called "assault weapons"--is in no way indicative of a desire to kill.
Germany has a very healthy hunting and sporting community, which leads me to think you may be lying about being drafted into the German army. That hunting heritage goes way back. What does the word Jaeger mean?
Semper fi
> I guess the generally accepted use of a gun is... to kill people. Prove me otherwise, if you can.
Given that there are literally dozens of gun clubs in almost any state in the US, why don't you drive down to one of them and see what people actually DO with guns? If you find a gun club where people are killing other people, please let me know. Actually... skip letting me know and alert the authorities. (You won't have to go far since a lot of the folks at the gun club will be military and police.... you know... the ones protecting you and your family.)
At the gun clubs I've been to, it's mostly people shooting targets shaped like concentric circles, or clay disks thrown into the air.
Never been to Germany, personally, so I can't speak for them.
Interesting concept. I guess it really depends on one's environment or surroundings. Probably I should also include their beliefs. As example, I have always lived in cities, so the hunting and sporting aspect are mostly ruled out. This leaves me with self defense and no matter the circumstances, I don't think or believe I could be shooting someone. That's just me.
Still, in the end, this is as the saying goes, one of our "inalienable rights" that must be protected. There certainly may be a day that owning a gun may be necessary and I pray my children never see that day.
I smell a rat, but I'm not sure. The American Army always teaches to "shoot for center mass", never head shots, and especially with the NATO-universal 5.56 round. The object is to wound, not to kill, because a wounded enemy draws more of the enemy's resources.
And machineguns are area-effect, not target-specific weapons. The idea is to establish a kill-zone downrange and keep the enemy down while the riflemen maneuver on them.
If you knew history, you'd know that guns were originally intended to knock down walls. Some guns are designed very specifically for target match competition; some for hunting. But even if we accept at face value that guns are designed to kill people, doesn't it matter who is doing the shooting? A person defending his or her life from a criminals should have the ability.
See Frank Dwyer's Profile
"The center!" That sounds so nice, so moderate, so reasonable, so innocent, so fair and balanced. Who could really seriously object to a grown-up politician moving to "the center"? Only those by definition on the margins, on the fringe, left- or right-of-center: the extremists.
But what if the center is Schumer, Feinstein, Mukasey, Pelosi, Hoyer, the votes for Roberts and Alito, the non-Opposition leadership of the Opposition Party, the collaboration of pretend Democrats in the serial subversion of the Constitution, and their unyielding resolution not to do anything ever about a wide range of patently obvious high crimes and misdemeanors from the Unitary Decider and his neo-con puppetmaster?
If that's the center, the center doesn't seem so attractive, does it? Not to me. Nader doesn't really seem like the nadir when you really think about it, does he, not in the political universe I'm describing. I agree that progressives need an electable and untarnished alternative to Nader. Some of us thought we had it, in Obama.
You still have it, in Obama. But what you are getting is not what you want but what a gifted politician thinks is needed. You can take it and trust that he is right. Or you can leave it and then you are left with a nutcase like Nader who runs for his own whims and not because he wants to help the nation.
If none of that is good enough for you, I would suggest you run for office yourself. You are encouraged to do so. Try to get elected. Do not compromise. Do not play games. Never sell out your principles. It's a fair game and everyone can play it (Nader is a good example that EVERYONE can play it). I mean it. I will vote for you if you can manage to run on a pure platform.
Well said.
Man, people will go to any twisting of logic to defend Obama's sell outs.
Maybe its not a tactical maneuver. Maybe so many Democrats were simply "fooled" by a great performance.
All the signs were always there.
- advocating a naive post-partisan political arrangement.
- the weakest health care proposal of all the Democrats running.
- sharing a stage with Donnie McClurkin.
"most liberal member of the Senate" Ha!
There is no twisting needed because Obama was never running on a theoretical liberal platform. He is running on change. Change does not mean that you get what you want. It means that we change the way we run things around here to make this nation better. Better never meant Marxist. It never meant that we convert right wingers into lefties. It also never meant that we do to the other guys as they have done to us. If you want an "eye for an eye" platform, you need not look at Obama. He does not offer that. And he never did.
The only change Obama is running on is that coming out of your pocket.
O was never the far left candidate. His candidacy is about reaching across the divide in order to get things done.
His position on guns (and I don't agree) has been consistant. Sorry guys, this is not the liberal purist you decided he was. Never has been.
I don't have to agree with everything he says but understand that nothing gets done without compromise. I need things to get done.
I never thought he was a liberal purist. I never thought he was anything else other than a DLC wolf in a progressive sheep's clothing.
Neither the openly DLC Clinton nor the closet DLC Obama received my primary vote because I always knew this election wasn't about making token history. This election could have been about rescuing the country from the forces of conservatism and moving the country in a progressive direction.
I think Obama will win and perhaps win big. But, as I suspected, we'll see a triangulating Obama Presidency, and a major historical opportunity will have been lost. This will be Clintonian election of 1992, not the FDR election of 1932.
Just be glad I'm still willing to vote for him as the lesser of two evils. But I was never fooled by the traveling salvation show.
Reaching out? It seems to me his statements made during the Pennsylvania primary were more like a slap. He needs to do a lot less speech making and a lot more listening if he wants to win in November. He and his supporters could start by refraining from using that worn-out race card.
He didn't sell out. He is doing exactly what he said he would do. You just projected your own views onto him.
I didn't project anything onto him. I saw through his performance from the beginning. It's is his swooning supporters who are headed for the big let down.
All Obama has done is confirm my initial suspicions.
Fraudently?
If Obama is a Neocon, than Bush is a sissy chearleader. Oh wait, I need to think of a diferent analogy.
You need to think. Period.
A bit over the top with the gun rights advocate bashing, aren't you, Phil? Who's "bitter" now?
I love huffpost.. most of the writers are people I've read for years.. liked their works..
But you all are totally deficient in Constitutional Knowledge here...
Sam Watterson put it the best I ever heard, in a "Law & Order" episode, where he said in a
closing argument: "We have NO rights that we cannot defend"... which, I reasoned thru to:
Rights, Priviledges.. call them whatever you want.. but without the ABILITY to protect ourselves..
what we HAVE is a great big bag of air.
Saying things like "The antipathy to gun control is bothersome".... wow.. the compressed
UNdeserved sophistry, and the arrogance of a self-congratulatory line of drek like that I've rarely heard.
In the REAL world.. where REAL people don't have 24-7 security goons, or Secret Service
protections.. a situation like DC's, was basically a barred cage full of unarmed victims, at the
mercy ILLEGALLY armed criminals.
Just think about how THAT situation would sit with the Founding Fathers.. I'm not one of these
cement-headed Original Intenters, but THINK for a damn second.. how ANY of them would see
this... and how'd they'd see the endorsement of GOVERNMENT as the official (as in: NO ONE else
can, under penalty of LAW) defender & protector of the people???
ATTENTION: Hangun Control Inc, the ACLU, and EVERY other would-be gun-grabber......
The Supreme Court has spoken.. and if they were unwilling to revisit the ABORTION issue's
legality, I think we can ALL count on this decision sticking too.
"It all comes down to the same thing: it's democracy, which means the voice of everyone, not just the folks you agree with."
Excellent point. We need to be reminded of this.
BTW, I've been reading your books for quite a while. Thanks. Keep writing.
Flip flop sounds so benign. Let's call it what it really is, selling out. Obama has fraudently captured the Democratic nomination. It's time to stand up to the lying, cheating, stealing politicians and tell them no, we don't vote for liars. Now we are caught between a Neocon and a Neocon. Obama will embrace all of GWB's policies by the time the election comes around. I will not vote for this man. I will write in Homer Simpson. Basically the same person anyway. Obama is a fraud.
I agree.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
