United Liberty
And When They Came For The Gun Owners…
Tue, 11/25/2008 - 5:50am | posted by Stephen Gordon
During the 2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008, here is how Barack Obama responded to a question pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms (emphasis added):
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Based on news reports from The New York Times and Politico, it’s quite possible that Obama intends for the federal government to “constrain the exercise of that right.” From the The Times:
Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy. [snip] Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun.
Politico digs a bit deeper:
Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws. “The intent of the gun question is to determine legal permitting,” said one transition aide. But even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question. Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
There may be a bill introduced which would make it illegal to discriminate in federal hiring based on gun ownership:
“It’s very odd and very concerning to put out a question like that,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), adding that it may also be “unprecedented.” The freshman senator, who is up for reelection in 2010, had his campaign organization send an e-mail to supporters this week, pledging to enact legislation to bar federal hiring discrimination on the basis of gun ownership.
Unfortunately, DeMint’s strongest ally will likely be the organization which stabbed one of their own in the back in order to endorse another gun-grabber:
The NRA, the gun-rights group that spent millions to defeat Obama, only to see him easily carry sportsmen-heavy states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, is signaling that it intends to keep up the fight. “Barack Obama and his administration are showing their true colors and true philosophy with regard to the Second Amendment,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s top political official. “It shows what we’ve been saying all along — this guy doesn’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental constitutional right.” Cox said the group had put the word out to their members on the question.
First of all, Obama must be pretty out-of-touch with gun laws around the country — based on the wording of the gun questions, at least. In much of the country, we don’t even have to register firearms. In places where registration is required, gun owners usually aren’t forced to register family heirlooms.
How and when used? Umm, for shooting… Squeezing the trigger… As often as possible?
Are blown up cans and bottles considered property damage?
Also, if Obama doesn’t have an anti-Second Amendment agenda, why isn’t he asking the following question on the questionnaire:
Do you or any members of your immediate family own a motor vehicle? If so, provide complete ownership, insurance and registration information. Has the registration or insurance ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.
Cars are certainly a lot more dangerous than firearms.
Related Articles-
Guns, Drugs & Presidential Pardons
Fully vs. Semi-Automatic: Can You Tell the Difference?
Ron Paul on Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
2A Today for the USA- New Video on the 2nd Amendment
Once again, Gordon nails it right in the ass. Why don’t you all have Gordo write here more often?
Idiot. Driver’s records are public information. They can do due-diligence on a DMV computer. Thanks to the gun nuts, there is no such one-stop shopping for firearms activity.
I have my dad’s .410 in a bag, not because I use it, but because it was his. If I had to fill out this silly form I would tell them that, and that would be the end of it. Do you really trhink they’d send a black helicopter to come get it? You should see some of the other questions on that form. They looked right up people’s butts. And it’s about damn time after the parade of lunatics and pissants we’ve had through DC the last 8 years.
Idiot. He was making a point, one that obviously flew a bit too high over your head.
I don’t understand what your outrage is about. The second amendment was intended to restrain the federal government from creating a permanent, standing army which could be used to impose upon states and municipalities. I think it’s a valid point that the second amendment does not necessarily limit the states. It’s also valid for Obama to ask whether any of his cabinet members are in violation of valid state gun laws, which could potentially cause a scandal.
While you don’t need to “register” guns, historically individuals were required to “present” their firearms to local and state officials to show that they were in good order. This is still the law in Kennesaw, GA, although the law is not enforced.
For far too long, gun advocates have been trying to re-write the second amendment to say whatever they want, the heck with what it really means. One might like the result in, say, the recent Heller case, but the logic in the decision was ridiculous. Likewise, the paranoia in this article needs to be checked.
Just like the NRA paranoia for paranoia’s sake. Please find me one legitimate case of a hunter, or person wanting a gun for personal protection where someone couldn’t buy a gun.
Uhhhh…Anyone wanting to buy a gun in the District of Columbia, which has the highest per capita gun murder rate in the USA, the whole reason for the Heller case?!
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
I personally know a lady who was denied a concealed carry permit, and the sheriff has so far refused to give her an explanation. She has no priors- just a sweet mom who wants to be able to protect herself.
I can show you THOUSANDS of good clean law abiding citizens who are denied the right to buy a firearm. Every single troop returning from Iraq or Afghanistan is denied the right to purchase any firearm for any reason for one year after leaving the service. Obama fully intends to disarm America. I fully intend not to let him.
Maybe GA does require that you present you firearms — GA does have some seriously outdated laws. In my state, I can carry openly and often do. I also have a concealed carry so that I can carry in other states where my concealed carry is accepted as valid. NO ONE asks to see if my firearms are in good operating condition, and I have not found that in our state laws. So, it is not required in every state.
To say that the 2nd Amendment was not merely about the federal government. The Founders did not see things in such a light. Those same rights are inherent to all of us. For example, suppose a state decided that it didn’t care for freedom of religion (note the state — freedom of and not freedom from) or freedom of speech and press. And that state decided to ban all but one denomination (because that is all that the Founders were talking about) and to end the free press and the right of the people to speak out. Would the federal government keep its nose out?
I doubt it!! The Constitution protects rights that are not giving to us by the government but are unalienable rights that the Founders believed required special protection. If you pay attention to what was written in the Ten and in the writings of the Founders, you’ll learn this. But, then, being an old fart like I am I guess I’ve done a bit more reading and studying than you.
OO
2 things:
1. Say you’ve got a cock. The state and local government constrains the use of that cock on/with certain people (underage or unwilling, for example). It’s a good thing.
2. If people come for your guns, shoot them. Don’t be the pussiest gun owner ever and complain about it.
In case you have not read the Second Amendment, here it is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The NRA deliberately leaves out the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State”, knowing that all their arguments for freedom of firearms is mute. So the NRA deliberately mislead their members in order to collect funds for their own use. Like paying salaries to their executives, etc.
The government also knows it would be very foolish to try to register “all” firearms or even try to confiscate the firearms. The government understands that most people are responsible enough to use their firearms with good judgment.
There are plenty of firearm laws on the books today, so new ones are really not necessary. Enforcement of these laws is a better way to control firearms.
Government officials and reasonable people do not want firearms (of any type) in the hands of ex-felons, thieves, murders, people who are unstable, etc.
Also the policemen do not need to be in firefights with people who have automatic weapons, etc. Do you really think that anyone needs an automatic weapon, so they can do drive by shootings (becoming too common), to spray bullets out randomly and wound or kill anybody? Of course not.
There is no need for automatic weapons for any other use except the purpose they were created for, killing human beings in military situations.
Freedom of firearms should not include weapons for mass murder, or explosive devices, rocket launchers, etc.
So if the incoming administration wants to keep problems from occurring, that is their privilege. No where did the questionnaire state you would not be hired if you owned a firearm.
Also hopefully the gossip mongers have nothing to flourish on.
One last thing, all the government has to do is regulate the sale and manufacturing of ammunition and the freedom of firearms will become a mute point.
Mike, just a few years back another incumbent who made the worse decision of his life — his name was Bill Clinton and he pushed through the 93 Bill that banned so many firearms, magazines, etc. The blow was sufficient to get firearms owners up off their duffs in 94 to vote the Democrats out. Well, Obama is of the same ilk as Clinton, only worse. He hasn’t a clue as to what the firearms’ laws are across the nation. He opposes the concealed carry laws. And, from what I’ve learned, he is disposed to passing the necessary legislation that would pass the UN Treaty that requires Americans to turn in their firearms. Think I’m kidding — go check out Senate Bill 2344. Then tell me that Obama wouldn’t try to confiscate firearms.
I don’t trust Obama and never will. A man that lies as he has — and does it looking you right in the eyes while doing it is no one I care about.
OO
This gun issue is another head fake of the real issue that needs to get in the main stream public eye. Bearing arms is a right in the constitution. Freedoms are rights in the constitution. What is not currently legislated in our laws but was in the past is this. We have minimum wage laws, slave labor laws, child labor laws, environmental laws, over usage of material laws such as water. But the Corporations that make all of our goods cheat the laws or bypass the laws by going to third world countries to increase there profit margins. This has exported all of the gains and technology explosion of the United States of America and the western world. At first there was economic expansion because you had manufacturing of everything in the United States of America being done better with less labor, less material, less environmental impact along side of a global expansion using technologies from the US and financed by US stock market, investment bankers and the IMF. Now the balance has tipped and the very economical US manufacturing is being shut down while the global third world manufacturing with more people, more material usage and no environmental controls is allowed to continue. IE Ford, GM, and Chrysler plants shut down while Chinese knock off plants continue making automobiles that are not better in quality and not better in price utilizing 10 times more people, 10 times more material, 100 times more pollution. What do you get when you produce less goods with more people, more material, more pollution, and you do this world wide while you idle factories in the United States that make the entire car body with less than 200 people at 60-100 automobiles per hour? You get world wide economic recession and maybe even depression. But the glass is over half full. We have the greatest technological advance in the history of the world going on right now. We have legislated freedoms. Now we need to go out and vote in legislators who will bring back laws that were already on the books to stop companies from breaking minimum wage, child labor, and slave labor laws and environmental laws. That means make it illegal to sell goods in the United States or western world by companies that do not adhere to these laws no matter were in the world they produce there automobiles, clothing, electronics or FOOD, period. We have gun laws on the books and yes we need to preserve them. We are losing all of our work rule laws and environmental laws because Corporations are going to third world countries to get around them. It is time we stop this by electing officials who will not allow these laws to expire off the books and write new ones to stop Corporations from circumventing existing ones by off shoring work. Everyone in the United States of America from the store owner to the janitor needs this to happen because everyone is effected by this!!! We have the power to elect those who will make this happen!!!
If you look at the second amendment punctuation the coma between “A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed” completes a thought. The second amendment is saying two different things. If very clearly states that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms.
I’ve been to countries where the general public is not allowed to own firearms and they tend to be places where the government and nefarious individuals can and do kill the general public without recourse. You can be sheep, wolves, or sheepdogs. I prefer to be a sheepdog with the ability to protect myself and my family, if and when necessary. As for you sheep, have fun with the wolves…
Jason:
The founding fathers understood the concept of “militia” much differently that you seem to. In those times, every able-bodied adult male was, by default, a member of the militia.
The founding fathers saw this militia as a means of keeping the government in check.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson
I am a gun owner and enjoy a good debate as much as most people. I think the Obama anti-gun rhetoric is overblown. Hopefully the man realizes we have more urgent things to take care of at the moment.
I am starting to see the anti way, I also beleive it should apply to all things. Like the internet for example, bad people could use the internet to do bad things (hacking, controlling red lights, who knows) so with this in mind we should limit the speed that people can access the internet because something that goes fast like high speed internet could only encourage and/or make it easier for people to do bad things. Of course the military, law enforcement and the rich/famous people of the country can still have speed because they are never the ones we have to worry about.
Oh what else could we apply these theories too? Cars? The speed of computers? Time to start a focus group to start working on these.
Post new comment