rainbowbob
Member
I honestly did not think the issue of gun control would be debated…particularly in the Democratic Party debates. I didn’t watch the last one, but I found a transcript that I have perused…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_pennsylvania_democratic_de.html
I can’t help but want to rebut their statements…so I will do so here:
The following is excerpted from the candidates responses in red and commented on by me in blue. The questions from the moderators are in green.
This may be too political for this forum, since it does concern specific candidate’s views on gun control. I’ll leave that up to the mods. I do think it is important to examine ALL of the candidates positions on this issue. It is important – as much for the Constitutional questions raised as the questions regarding self-defense.
Please: No candidate flaming that will result in an immediate thread-lock. Let’s keep it civil.
For the record…I consider myself a liberal independent – who has mostly voted for Democrats over the last 37 years. During that time I have closely questioned and criticized the motives and policies of the “other” party.
It has finally dawned on me that for most of that time, I have given the Dems a pass. I have accepted, often without question, the statements and policies made by them. Now that I have finally awakened to the importance of the 2nd Amendment - I realize it is time to question and criticize their motives and policies – and the results of those policies.
Mr Gibson: “…I would be remiss tonight if I didn't take note of the fact that today is the one-year anniversary of Virginia Tech. And I think it's fair to say that probably every American during this day, at one point or another, said a small prayer for the great people at that university and for those who died.
It also, I suspect, makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns. And it has not been talked about much in this campaign and it's an important issue in the state of Pennsylvania.
Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms.
Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.”
Senator Obama: “What I think we can provide is 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.”
How? Serious attempts have been made for more than 30 years to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. These attempts have been an unequivocal failure. Just like the bumper stickers predicted: In places like D.C and Obama’s Chicago where law-abiding citizens are banned from handgun ownership…only the criminals have guns. Violent crime has increased dramatically in those cities where guns were banned. In most other cities, violent crime has decreased.
It may seem counter-intuitive to some – but doesn’t the evidence point to the fallacy of these policies? Sen. Obama makes absolutist statements (i.e., “We can make sure”…”We can make certain”) ...with no evidence of any measure of success (never mind certainty) in more than 30 years of attempts to reduce crime by passing gun control laws.
Mind you, I also think we should attempt to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the criminally insane (and anyone else who has forfeited their constitutional rights). But banning law-abiding citizens from possessing a means of self-defense is not only ineffective – it is unconstitutional.
Which brings up an issue even more important than a chicken in every pot and a gun in every pocket…Namely, the importance of upholding and defending ALL of our constitutionally protected rights. I want to emphasize the word “protected” as opposed to “granted”. The Bill of Rights does NOT enumerate rights granted by the government to its citizens. It enumerates rights that are “self-evident” conferred to us by our creator (and one need not believe in a creator to believe that these fundamental, self-evident rights existed before any government.)
No other government before (and perhaps since) has declared that the individual is sovereign, and that the government takes license from the governed – rather than the other way around. I consider this to be an extremely important distinction, and one that we have often lost sight of.
In order to insure these rights for ourselves, we are bound to support them for all citizens. That means we must support protection from unreasonable search and seizure for persons we suspect of loathsome acts. We must support the free exercise of speech of those whose ideas are loathsome to us. And we must support the right of “the people” (a very clear reference to individuals rather than “the states”) to keep and bear arms uninfringed, even if we consider guns to be loathsome.
“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.”
What is an “unscrupulous gun dealer”…what is a “straw purchaser”? These kinds of buzz words do not help clarify the issue – but they do serve to frame the issue in favor of the goal of the person using them.
If a person with the constitutional right to purchase a gun does so legally (the "straw buyer” – often a gang-banger’s girlfriend), and then transfers that firearm to a person who is restricted from possession, a crime has been committed by said buyer. How is the gun dealer in this example “unscrupulous”? Too often we accept this sort of word-play uncritically.
How do you prevent the crime described without infringing on the rights of law-abiding people? You enforce the laws already in place that make it a crime to provide a firearm to a person not legally entitled to possess one.
“The point is, is that what we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.”
Indeed! And we have to get beyond the politics to figure out what is NOT working, as well. How much more evidence will be required to determine that gun bans have been an unqualified failure?
“Look, in my hometown of Chicago, on the south side of Chicago, we've had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public school children. And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?”
Again…How much more evidence, how many more innocent deaths will it take – to recognize that the policy of gun bans has NOT stopped the killing, and may have even caused it to increase?
In the interest of providing equal time to Sen. Clinton: Clinton’s words in red…my comments in blue…the questioner’s in green.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?
Sen Clinton: The “D.C. Ban” refers to a ban on ALL private ownership of handguns in the city.
“You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you're referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms."
The case, D.C. v Heller, is being considered by the Supreme Court and will probably be decided in June (just in time for the national debates…hmmm). The decision might finally resolve the question whether the words “the people” in the 2nd Amendment refers to individuals or states. The right of self-defense was hardly a matter of debate by the framers, or by the state’s constitutional framers, which I believe in most cases clearly refer to individuals having the right to keep and bear arms.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts. But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them.”
“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.
If you "reverse-engineer" Sen. Clinton's first convoluted statement by removing the double negatives, it would go something like this: "Well, I think a total ban, with a few exceptions under very limited circumstances, might be found by the court to be...[...consistant with the 2nd Amendment]."
Sen. Clinton states that “…the Constitution confers an individual right…” This language infers that the Constitution grants said right. The Constitution does no such thing. It does, however, recognize the right as pre-existing to the Constitution, and protects that right from infringement. This is not a trivial point – and applies to all of the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights.
She says: “...I don’t know the facts...” Nonetheless, she is willing to suggest regulations and restrictions, regardless of her ignorance of the facts. She suggests that legislating against “...assault weapons...” will keep them “…out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them…”
Let me point out that assault is a crime – not an inanimate object. This is another example of framing the debate by using language that vilifies objects and/or people that use those objects for lawful purposes. It is already illegal to commit assault with any weapon, including a stick. Persons that do so should be arrested and prosecuted.
Let me also point out there is no evidence that gun control laws have kept firearms out the hands of the folks who shouldn’t have them.
Hunters, sportsman, and yes – homeowners – use weapons that fire multiple rounds from clips for lawful purposes. This does not constitute “assault”. These are correctly called “semi-automatic” because they do not require that the weapon be cocked each time it is fired. They do require a separate pull of the trigger for each round fired. This is no different than most revolvers. These are not “machine guns” which fire continuous bursts with one pull of the trigger.
I realize this is far more than most non gun owners want to know about the operation of firearms. It is also more than most legislators want to know. And yet they are constantly proposing more and more legislation based on this woeful lack of knowledge – and citizens with an equally woeful lack of knowledge are asked to vote on those proposals.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_pennsylvania_democratic_de.html
I can’t help but want to rebut their statements…so I will do so here:
The following is excerpted from the candidates responses in red and commented on by me in blue. The questions from the moderators are in green.
This may be too political for this forum, since it does concern specific candidate’s views on gun control. I’ll leave that up to the mods. I do think it is important to examine ALL of the candidates positions on this issue. It is important – as much for the Constitutional questions raised as the questions regarding self-defense.
Please: No candidate flaming that will result in an immediate thread-lock. Let’s keep it civil.
For the record…I consider myself a liberal independent – who has mostly voted for Democrats over the last 37 years. During that time I have closely questioned and criticized the motives and policies of the “other” party.
It has finally dawned on me that for most of that time, I have given the Dems a pass. I have accepted, often without question, the statements and policies made by them. Now that I have finally awakened to the importance of the 2nd Amendment - I realize it is time to question and criticize their motives and policies – and the results of those policies.
Mr Gibson: “…I would be remiss tonight if I didn't take note of the fact that today is the one-year anniversary of Virginia Tech. And I think it's fair to say that probably every American during this day, at one point or another, said a small prayer for the great people at that university and for those who died.
It also, I suspect, makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns. And it has not been talked about much in this campaign and it's an important issue in the state of Pennsylvania.
Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms.
Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.”
Senator Obama: “What I think we can provide is 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.”
How? Serious attempts have been made for more than 30 years to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. These attempts have been an unequivocal failure. Just like the bumper stickers predicted: In places like D.C and Obama’s Chicago where law-abiding citizens are banned from handgun ownership…only the criminals have guns. Violent crime has increased dramatically in those cities where guns were banned. In most other cities, violent crime has decreased.
It may seem counter-intuitive to some – but doesn’t the evidence point to the fallacy of these policies? Sen. Obama makes absolutist statements (i.e., “We can make sure”…”We can make certain”) ...with no evidence of any measure of success (never mind certainty) in more than 30 years of attempts to reduce crime by passing gun control laws.
Mind you, I also think we should attempt to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the criminally insane (and anyone else who has forfeited their constitutional rights). But banning law-abiding citizens from possessing a means of self-defense is not only ineffective – it is unconstitutional.
Which brings up an issue even more important than a chicken in every pot and a gun in every pocket…Namely, the importance of upholding and defending ALL of our constitutionally protected rights. I want to emphasize the word “protected” as opposed to “granted”. The Bill of Rights does NOT enumerate rights granted by the government to its citizens. It enumerates rights that are “self-evident” conferred to us by our creator (and one need not believe in a creator to believe that these fundamental, self-evident rights existed before any government.)
No other government before (and perhaps since) has declared that the individual is sovereign, and that the government takes license from the governed – rather than the other way around. I consider this to be an extremely important distinction, and one that we have often lost sight of.
In order to insure these rights for ourselves, we are bound to support them for all citizens. That means we must support protection from unreasonable search and seizure for persons we suspect of loathsome acts. We must support the free exercise of speech of those whose ideas are loathsome to us. And we must support the right of “the people” (a very clear reference to individuals rather than “the states”) to keep and bear arms uninfringed, even if we consider guns to be loathsome.
“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.”
What is an “unscrupulous gun dealer”…what is a “straw purchaser”? These kinds of buzz words do not help clarify the issue – but they do serve to frame the issue in favor of the goal of the person using them.
If a person with the constitutional right to purchase a gun does so legally (the "straw buyer” – often a gang-banger’s girlfriend), and then transfers that firearm to a person who is restricted from possession, a crime has been committed by said buyer. How is the gun dealer in this example “unscrupulous”? Too often we accept this sort of word-play uncritically.
How do you prevent the crime described without infringing on the rights of law-abiding people? You enforce the laws already in place that make it a crime to provide a firearm to a person not legally entitled to possess one.
“The point is, is that what we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.”
Indeed! And we have to get beyond the politics to figure out what is NOT working, as well. How much more evidence will be required to determine that gun bans have been an unqualified failure?
“Look, in my hometown of Chicago, on the south side of Chicago, we've had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public school children. And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?”
Again…How much more evidence, how many more innocent deaths will it take – to recognize that the policy of gun bans has NOT stopped the killing, and may have even caused it to increase?
In the interest of providing equal time to Sen. Clinton: Clinton’s words in red…my comments in blue…the questioner’s in green.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?
Sen Clinton: The “D.C. Ban” refers to a ban on ALL private ownership of handguns in the city.
“You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you're referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms."
The case, D.C. v Heller, is being considered by the Supreme Court and will probably be decided in June (just in time for the national debates…hmmm). The decision might finally resolve the question whether the words “the people” in the 2nd Amendment refers to individuals or states. The right of self-defense was hardly a matter of debate by the framers, or by the state’s constitutional framers, which I believe in most cases clearly refer to individuals having the right to keep and bear arms.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts. But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them.”
“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.
If you "reverse-engineer" Sen. Clinton's first convoluted statement by removing the double negatives, it would go something like this: "Well, I think a total ban, with a few exceptions under very limited circumstances, might be found by the court to be...[...consistant with the 2nd Amendment]."
Sen. Clinton states that “…the Constitution confers an individual right…” This language infers that the Constitution grants said right. The Constitution does no such thing. It does, however, recognize the right as pre-existing to the Constitution, and protects that right from infringement. This is not a trivial point – and applies to all of the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights.
She says: “...I don’t know the facts...” Nonetheless, she is willing to suggest regulations and restrictions, regardless of her ignorance of the facts. She suggests that legislating against “...assault weapons...” will keep them “…out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them…”
Let me point out that assault is a crime – not an inanimate object. This is another example of framing the debate by using language that vilifies objects and/or people that use those objects for lawful purposes. It is already illegal to commit assault with any weapon, including a stick. Persons that do so should be arrested and prosecuted.
Let me also point out there is no evidence that gun control laws have kept firearms out the hands of the folks who shouldn’t have them.
Hunters, sportsman, and yes – homeowners – use weapons that fire multiple rounds from clips for lawful purposes. This does not constitute “assault”. These are correctly called “semi-automatic” because they do not require that the weapon be cocked each time it is fired. They do require a separate pull of the trigger for each round fired. This is no different than most revolvers. These are not “machine guns” which fire continuous bursts with one pull of the trigger.
I realize this is far more than most non gun owners want to know about the operation of firearms. It is also more than most legislators want to know. And yet they are constantly proposing more and more legislation based on this woeful lack of knowledge – and citizens with an equally woeful lack of knowledge are asked to vote on those proposals.
Last edited:
