"W-what's the problem then? I'm voting for Obama!"
Posted on 02/27/2008 12:26:34 PM PST by neverdem
Barack Obama's Second Amendment is all about hunting and target shooting.
Under the Second Amendment, Barack Obama says, "There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination thus seems to be on the same wavelength as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which in a decision last March said "the protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
But there is a crucial difference between these superficially similar formulations: The appeals court meant what it said, and Obama doesn't. Although the Illinois senator has learned to pay lip service to the Second Amendment, the details of his past and present positions on gun control suggest he neither understands nor respects the right to keep and bear arms.
In last year's ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law thereby effectively bars city residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.
Obama evidently considers that de facto prohibition a "common-sense regulation," since he recently cited Washington's law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution," he said.
The D.C. gun law, passed in 1975, isn't really about gangbangers, which it has not exactly disarmed, or random shootings on the street, which it has not noticeably curbed. In effect if not intent, it is about disarming law-abiding residents who might want to protect themselves from gangbangers and other violent criminals.
It's not surprising that Obama sees nothing unconstitutional about this situation, since he does not acknowledge that the Second Amendment has anything to do with self-defense. "As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms," his website claims. "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting" (emphasis added).
This is the only substantive discussion of the Second Amendment on Obama's website. It's part of a document that lists "Protecting Gun Rights" as a subcategory of "Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen," which is like listing "Protecting Freedom of Speech" as a subcategory of "Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Auctioneers."
It's true that hunting—at the time an important source of sustenance, as opposed to the hobby it has become for most Americans—was one of the gun uses the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed the right to arms. But as the D.C. Circuit emphasized when it found Washington's gun law unconstitutional, "the people's right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation," which was "understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government."
Because Obama ignores these aspects of the Second Amendment, he sees no constitutional barrier to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, which he supported when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Two years later he said he favored a ban on the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which would cover not only most handguns but many hunting rifles and shotguns as well.
Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that "Obama has been consistent." If so, consistent civil libertarians—the ones who do not mentally skip from the First Amendment to the Fourth—should be worried.
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
We need a grand slam SCOTUS decision in Heller this summer, otherwise this country will go the way of Australia and Britain and possession of guns will be past tense.
This is a very dangerous man.
He’ll start by taking away your guns, then follow behind by implementing liberal social programs that will clearly demonstrate your urgent need for them.
Glad I am taking my concealed carry course this weekend, despite the fact it may only have a 12 month shelf life if this clown has his way.
Common Sense is in the eye of the beholder. O’Bama has no Common Sense. But he offers hope for change and change for hope and change for change and hope for hope of change that hope changes.
Over mine and half the country’s dead bodies. That said this as_hat is dangerous and his cult following just doesn’t get it. He has no message other than “change”. This is how socialist are empowered.
I agree, let’s wait until after the primaries for this.
This country will go the way of revolt before we go the way of Australia and Britain.
I don’t know about you, but I would consider someone trying to do me or my property harm as a “target”
“This country will go the way of revolt before we go the way of Australia and Britain.”
Here, here...
How about the taxman -
“he” does your property harm all the time.
"W-what's the problem then? I'm voting for Obama!"
I’ll second that. I’m already preparing.
the correct answer by Mike Huckabee:
Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that’s why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn’t have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren’t inalienable, they’re just “on loan” from the government.
Will they fight for those rights? Well, given that only 5% of gunowners belong to any type of gun-rights organization (NRA, GOA, state orgs), I highly doubt it. There are true believers out there, but they also have a lot to lose and the numbers wouldn't be enough to be labeled anything other than a "small gang of armed criminals" by the media. They certainly wouldn't be called "freedom fighters" or "patriots."
Not to someone who believes government intervention is the answer to every situation you may face in life.
Barack Obama's words
No. Mitt Romney's
When we run candidates that are no different from those of the other party, don't be surrpised when voters decide to just go ahead and go for the real thing & vote Dem.
*(in Massachusetts)
>>Isn’t Self-Defense Common Sense? - Barack Obama’s Second Amendment is all about hunting<<
Self defense is just common sense. The Supreme court is good at finding non-enumerated rights - it would seem the could see that implied in all the other rights is the right self defense - it is THE fundamental human right - all the others depend on it.
At least I am a well armed criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.