Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: slingshot on October 08, 2008, 07:08:08 PM
-
MSNBC has a poll out on the subject. The NO's are winning. http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2008/10/06/1958542-will-you-vote-for-a-presidential-candidate-based-on-his-stance-on-guns?
There is also a linked article referred to as a background article on the page.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27036614/
Article is interesting and posted below:
Briefing Book: Shooting for the sweet spot
How McCain, Obama say they'll balance crime and the Second Amendment
By Carrie Dann
NBC/National Journal Reporter
updated 10:29 a.m. ET, Mon., Oct. 6, 2008
WASHINGTON - This election cycle, msnbc.com is presenting a weekly series, Briefing Book: Issues '08, assessing issues and controversies that the next president must confront.
This week, we take a look at guns. Whether it is for small-game hunting, for weekend trips to the shooting range, or for the security offered by a weapon in a locked cabinet, gun ownership is a source of pride and personal safety for millions of Americans.
An estimated 34 percent of Americans own a gun, and the total number of firearms owned by private citizens in the United States exceeds 200 million. The prevalence of gun ownership underscores its status as a cherished personal right for many, but the incidence of firearm-related crime also makes the regulation of guns one of the nation's most contentious legal and cultural issues.
Why it matters
Last year, the nation watched in horror as the death toll mounted in the rampage at Virginia Tech. More than 30 college students were mowed down by a mentally-ill student. The perpetrator, Cho Seung-Hui, legally purchased the two guns used in the massacre from a Virginia gun dealer.
But the semi-automatic ammunition used in one of the weapons would have been illegal under an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, and Cho's well-documented psychiatric illness was not included in the results of a required background check because he was treated as an outpatient and was never admitted to a hospital.
Even as the men and women running for the presidency swiftly reacted with earnest expressions of grief, some criticizing the holes in gun regulation that allowed Cho to wield the weapons, Republicans and Democrats alike were quick to express their support for the right of everyday Americans to own guns.
"This brutal attack was not caused by, nor should it lead to, restrictions on the Second Amendment," Sen. John McCain said.
In the United States, the legal right to own a firearm derives from the Second Amendment to the Constitution, penned in 1789, which reads "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."
Those 27 words have launched volumes of analysis by constitutional scholars and interest groups who disagree over the founding fathers' intentions for gun ownership in times of peace. Some gun opponents believe that the Second Amendment only permits firearms in the hands of those serving collectively in the nation's defense, while gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Association believe that it guarantees the fundamental right of all law-abiding citizens to buy, own, transfer, and carry weapons without government interference.
That question, debated for almost 200 years, was first directly addressed by the Supreme Court in June 2008, when the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment refers to gun ownership as an "individual right," affirming in the District of Columbia v. Heller case that a citywide ban on handguns was unconstitutional.
The nation’s capital was a particularly fitting locale for a dispute over gun rights. In the 1990s, the city earned the regrettable nickname of "the murder capital of America," with the highest rate of firearms deaths per capita in the United States. Although crime has decreased substantially, the city continues to rank in the top 20 nationally for violent crime.
In 2006, according to FBI statistics, there were 14,831 homicides in the United States. Almost 70% were committed with a firearm, and nearly half were committed with the type of handguns that the city of Washington attempted to ban.
Although the court's landmark decision put to rest — for now — the question of the government's power to forbid a citizen from keeping a gun in his or her home, regulations on the sale, tracing, and concealed carrying of weapons remain very much in dispute. And some continue to question the need for average citizens to own many types of deadly weapons and ammunition, such as semi-automatic rifles and the high-capacity magazines used by Cho in last year's massacre at Virginia Tech.
"He had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row," Barack Obama told a crowd in Nashua, N.H., after the shooting. "I don't know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn't be hunting."
Where the candidates stand
Both McCain and Obama agree with the Supreme Court's fundamental assertion in the Heller case that gun ownership is an "individual right" – not a collective right associated with service in a militia – upheld by the Second Amendment.
But while McCain cautioned that the decision was only the first step in ensuring the right, saying that it did not "mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens," Obama responded that the decision did not preclude "the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."
The candidates' responses to the Heller decision illustrate their divergent positions on the issue of gun control. McCain opposes most proposals to ban specific types of weapons and ammunition, and he believes that gun manufacturers should not be held liable for crimes committed with their products.
"I strongly support the Second Amendment," he told the Associated Press last year. "And I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control.''
The proposals put forward by Obama, on the other hand, indicate a preference toward government restrictions intended to curb crime. During a debate on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Obama described the right to bear arms as parallel to the right to own private property. In both cases, he said, local governments can regulate how the right is used, as with zoning laws in the case of property.
Obama supports the rollback of the Tiahrt Amendment, a measure that prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BAFTE) from releasing information from its database of firearm trace data to anyone other than law enforcement officials investigating a particular crime. Obama says that the amendment prevents local law enforcement from identifying the sources of illegal gun transfers. Supporters of Tiahrt, including the NRA, say that it protects the privacy of law-abiding gun owners. McCain also supports the repeal of the Tiahrt amendment, and gave a speech on the Senate floor in opposition to it.
In most states, citizens are permitted to carry a concealed weapon outside of their home, provided that they have a state-issued permit to do so and that they do not enter prohibited areas like schools or federal buildings.
While running for Senate in 2004, Obama called for "national legislation" to prohibit citizens from carrying concealed weapons at all. In 2008, he affirmed that concealed carrying "creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could [get shot during] altercations."
Obama also supports the reinstatement of a 1994 ban on a variety of semi-automatic pistols and rifles characterized as "assault weapons." McCain voted against the ban, which expired in 2004, and continues to oppose it.
Obama's vice presidential pick, Sen. Joe Biden, has been a stalwart believer in gun control throughout his Senate career, offering steady support for the Brady Bill and championing legislation to renew the assault weapons ban. But on the stump, he has been careful to reassure voters that Obama will not enact a gun ban, and he has highlighted his own gun ownership. "He tries to fool with my Beretta," Biden said of Obama in Virginia recently, "he's got a problem."
One controversial area of gun control on which Obama and McCain agree concerns background checks conducted at gun shows. Both candidates believe that unlicensed sellers at private gun shows should be required to abide by the same instant background check rules that apply to licensed gun dealers.
In 2001, McCain, along with independent and longtime ally Sen. Joe Lieberman, introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to close the so-called "gun show loophole." McCain’s bill was added as an amendment to an NRA-backed bill aimed at granting the gun industry immunity from certain lawsuits. The McCain amendment passed, and its passage led the NRA to withdraw support from its own bill.
This legislation, coupled with his championing of campaign finance reform, earned McCain the ire of the NRA, which once famously deemed him one of the country's "premier flag-carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment." His last 'grade' on the NRA rating scale, calculated in 2004, was only a C+, and the powerful gun lobby has declined to formally endorse him. But McCain has largely made amends with the organization, heavily courting their vote despite his continued disagreement on gun show background checks.
And McCain's sometimes tenuous ties to the gun lobby got a Teflon coating when he picked Alaska governor and avid hunter Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. Palin's enthusiasm for fishing and game hunting makes her a favorite of sportsmen. Internet users even launched thousands of web searches after her selection to lay eyes on a doctored photo of her striking a beauty-queen pose and holding a rifle.
"Since 2004, Sen. McCain has voted with us 100 percent of the time," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.
Arulanandam now describes McCain's record as consistently respectful of gun rights, while Obama's demonstrates "nothing but contempt toward American gun owners and hunters."
Specifically, Obama's votes on the issue as a state senator in Illinois, and later in the U.S. Senate, are the object of suspicion, as well as a fierce ad campaign produced by the organization.
How they have voted
In 2003, a man in a Chicago suburb used a handgun — illegal by village ordinance — to shoot an intruder in his kitchen who had broken in with the intention of stealing his car.
Hale Demar, 54, became a hero of gun rights activists when he was charged with violating the handgun ban after his confrontation with the burglar. Soon afterwards, state legislators drafted a bill that would exempt residents of gun-banning municipalities from facing charges if they used the prohibited weapon for self-defense. Obama voted against the measure.
The Demar vote is among several cited by Obama's opponents as evidence of hostility to the Second Amendment. In a recent ad from the NRA, for example, the roll call from the legislation is cited to back up the statement that the Illinois senator "opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense."
Also while in the state legislature, Obama voted to limit handgun sales to one-per-month for individual buyers. (But he also supported a measure to loosen restrictions on gun ownership by former law enforcement officials.)
In the U.S. Senate, Obama's voting record reflects a similar ideology toward gun restrictions. In 2005, Obama was one of 31 senators who voted against Republican-sponsored legislation to "prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products."
McCain voted in favor of the measure, which was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Bush.
Obama also voted in favor of an amendment to the liability legislation that sought to expand the definition of "armor-piercing ammunition" with the intent of banning a greater variety of bullets capable of penetrating police armor. The same types of ammunition can be used in deer hunting, prompting opponents of the measure to decry it as an assault on hunters' rights. McCain voted against the measure, which failed.
During his 26-year career in Washington, McCain has consistently opposed most efforts to place limits on gun ownership, including the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill, a measure passed in 1993 that mandated a waiting period of up to five days for gun buyers. He has also voted in favor of legislation to toughen penalties on those who violate existing gun laws and illegally transfer firearms.
Unanswered questions
One of the most widely repeated quotes of the primary season was Obama's statement, captured on audiotape at a closed San Francisco fundraiser, that rural Americans "cling to guns" because they are "bitter" about their economic struggles.
The comments touched off a new volley of criticism against the senator, whose primary opponents derided him as out-of-touch and contemptuous of gun owners. The "bitter" controversy continues to haunt him in his attempts to win over some rural voters, and it has further fueled rumors that Obama hopes to enact a federal gun ban.
Last month, Obama insisted to a questioner at a Pennsylvania event that "I'm not going to take away your guns." Frustrated, he offered the logic that "even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress."
His prediction is almost certainly correct. Congressional opposition to any kind of ban, especially in light of the Heller decision, would be vehement.
But Obama's record is not entirely clear on whether or not he believes that such a ban would be constitutional or beneficial.
Before the Heller ruling, Obama's campaign told a Chicago newspaper that the senator believed that the D.C. gun ban was constitutional. The campaign later disavowed the statement, characterizing it as an "inartful" communication of his views.
In 1996, when running for the state senate, Obama responded affirmatively on a questionnaire that asked "Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama said late last year that he never laid eyes on that part of survey. The "yes" response was attributed to a staffer who accidentally mischaracterized Obama's positions when filling out the questionnaire on his behalf.
Although McCain has been consistent throughout his career in weighing in on gun rights, his passion for Second Amendment protections does not match that of many of his Republican colleagues. As such, some skeptics wonder how vigorously he will pursue the loosening of current gun control laws if elected. McCain says that he does not currently own a gun, and, during a campaign stop at a gun store on the same day as his address to the NRA's annual convention, he lingered near the fishing gear, never allowing photographers to capture his image in front of firearm merchandise.
Surprises for the next president
The Heller ruling fundamentally impacted the underpinnings of American gun regulations by defining firearm ownership as a fundamental and individual Constitutional right. As a result, many local ordinances that prohibit gun ownership — like those in Chicago sustained by Obama's votes in the state senate — are in the process of re-litigation. The next president will likely have a role in further defining the relationships between local governments, law enforcement, and federal authorities in light of the new law of the land.
Experts believe that the next president will appoint as many as three new Supreme Court Justices, offering the potential for a significant and lasting impact on the nation's most controversial constitutional questions.
With the Heller decision resolved by a narrow 5-4 vote, activists on both sides of the gun issue will vehemently lobby the chief executive to choose new members of the court who will interpret the Second Amendment in their favored way.
Still, some gun control advocates express surprise and frustration that Second Amendment issues remain so contentious in the presidential race, considering the limited power of the executive branch to enact sweeping gun reforms without the support of the Congress. Noting the number of members of Congress who have "A" ratings from the NRA, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence agrees with Obama's statement that he would be unable to enact any gun ban even if it was his intention to do so.
"There are legitimate solutions to some of these problems that don't require taking guns away," Hamm added. "The right president can take steps that would reduce the level of gun violence we have in this country."
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27036614/
-
A man who doesn't trust me with a gun doesn't trust me at all. And it makes me wonder what he has to hide...
-
I have always wondered about the gun grabbers complaints
that a 50bmg could shoot thru an armored limousine.
umm, exactly what are you planning on doing to us,
that would require your being driven about in an armored limo for protection?
-
The article is long, 4 1/2 pages if you printed it out. But it is worth the read. It is pretty objectively done overall. There are a few things that I take issue with, but what do you expect from a NBC reporter when it comes to firearms and the 2nd Amendment.
-
I doubt it's a coincidence that voting to protect and defend the Second Amendment coincides with voting to protect and defend America.
-
Before the Heller ruling, Obama's campaign told a Chicago newspaper that the senator believed that the D.C. gun ban was constitutional. The campaign later disavowed the statement, characterizing it as an "inartful" communication of his views.
"Inartful" communication. Boy, these guys are creating brand new synonyms for the word "lie."
-
17.6% on MSNBC? I wonder how much that would be on Fox News? The gun issue alone, if portrayed to the public effectively, could easily swing the election.
FYI, my experience at gun shows proves to me that almost EVERY gun shop owner is ignorant on this issue. A fact that baffles me.
-
But the semi-automatic ammunition used in one of the weapons would have been illegal under an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004
Ummmm.... ???
Ummmm..... ???
</headscratch>
Ummm...??????
'Splain pleez.
Otherwise, I gotta say: Stupid reporter. Even if Cho used uberevil hollowpoints in his 9mm wundernine, they weren't illegal. And I bet he just used FMJ. 100 rounds of defensive hollowpoints are hard to buy on a murderous psychopath wackjob starving college student budget.
-
"Inartful" communication. Boy, these guys are creating brand new synonyms for the word "lie."
They just misunderestimated him in an artless manner.
Libs getting away with shoddy grammar here, while poking at Dubya for 8 years over it.
-
for the security offered by a weapon in a locked cabinet
In a locked cabinet?
Full of (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2Ffail-owned-invisible-wig-epic-fail.jpg&hash=1f11af8e6d5230fde1a8eecb10772fb4f95a50a3)
-
I doubt it's a coincidence that voting to protect and defend the Second Amendment coincides with voting to protect and defend America.
*scratches head*
I'm not sure where you're going with that. I suspect "protect and defend America" means continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama's no friend of the 2nd amendment but I haven't seen anything indicate he's for an immediate withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, though he might be. It's kinda hard to nail down a plan for the wars with Democrats these days.
McCain's down with keeping troops overseas but he's of the opinion that I can't sell my guns unless a licensed federally licensed dealer gets in the mix. I don't really consider federal law enforcement getting involved in every gun transfer in the country to be defending the 2nd amendment.
Baldwin's good on the gun rights issue, but not in favor of our current war efforts.
Barr's about the same, but with a rather nasty mark on his record with voting to strip gun rights, retroactively, from folks convicted of domestic violence.
You're seeing consistency that I'm just not seeing.
-
for the security offered by a weapon in a locked cabinet
In a locked cabinet?
I saw that too and was like, how exactly does a firearm in a locked cabinet offer security?
-
McCain is less anti-gun than Obama. That is all.
-
Thats not really saying much.
-
In a word: Yes.
A man's stance on gun rights, gun ownership, and gun control pretty much tells me everything important I need to know about him.
There are, I suppose, other metrics that accurately reflect a man's view of his fellow man, but none I think so comprehensive as his views on guns/rights/ownership/control.
It tells me what he thinks of me. It tells me whether he believes I should control my life or he believes my life should be controlled for me.
He can dress it in whatever rhetoric he likes. All that does is inform me of the level of prevarication to which he'll stoop to get control of me.
No friend of liberty works to disarm a population.
-
Yes....if a gov't is willing to co-opt one right, you can count on it co-opting all the others eventually....
-
In a word: Yes.
A man's stance on gun rights, gun ownership, and gun control pretty much tells me everything important I need to know about him.
There are, I suppose, other metrics that accurately reflect a man's view of his fellow man, but none I think so comprehensive as his views on guns/rights/ownership/control.
It tells me what he thinks of me. It tells me whether he believes I should control my life or he believes my life should be controlled for me.
He can dress it in whatever rhetoric he likes. All that does is inform me of the level of prevarication to which he'll stoop to get control of me.
No friend of liberty works to disarm a population.
Yes.
And for the above quoted reasons.
-
The gun issue has surfaced in the Guardian, of all places - in this reasonably (remember this is the Guardian) good article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/08/uselections2008.virginia?commentpage=1&commentposted=1
-
Yes.
The second amendment is the "break glass in case of dictatorship" one that can be used if all the others are taken, to get the others back again.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
-
I doubt it's a coincidence that voting to protect and defend the Second Amendment coincides with voting to protect and defend America.
Everybody votes to protect and defend America. People just disagree on how to do it.
-
Everybody votes to protect and defend America. People just disagree on how to do it.
Some people want someone else to do it for them. Same people who want someone else to protect them.
-
In a word: Yes.
A man's stance on gun rights, gun ownership, and gun control pretty much tells me everything important I need to know about him.
There are, I suppose, other metrics that accurately reflect a man's view of his fellow man, but none I think so comprehensive as his views on guns/rights/ownership/control.
It tells me what he thinks of me. It tells me whether he believes I should control my life or he believes my life should be controlled for me.
He can dress it in whatever rhetoric he likes. All that does is inform me of the level of prevarication to which he'll stoop to get control of me.
No friend of liberty works to disarm a population.
^^^^ What he said
-
Worth reposting every election season.
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
-
What scares me even more if Obama wins is the off chance that he may appoint up to 3 SCOTUS Judges.
-
What scares me even more if Obama wins is the off chance that he may appoint up to 3 SCOTUS Judges.
They will be hardcore liberals.
-
They will be hardcore liberals.
TBH, that has advantages.
-
The second amendment is the "break glass in case of dictatorship" one that can be used if all the others are taken, to get the others back again.
That gives me an idea, lol
-
Those results were depressing - among the minority of "Yes" votes, quite a few of them stated that they said yes because they would not vote for a candidate that pushed gun control! =(
-
I know more than a few Pro 2A guys that consistently vote for the Dem / liberal, regardless of the candidate's / incumbent's position on firearms.
Why? They're pissed off at the Republican party for something that happened XX years ago.
One guy was a union member of PATCO, when he was fired by Reagan, and vowed to never vote GOP again.
-
TBH, that has advantages.
Such as?
-
Such as?
Liberal judges have more expansive interpretations of 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment freedoms. That's a good thing in my book.
-
I would wish some conservative judges (not all) would have a more "expansive" view of the first, forth, fifth & ninth (and tenth) amendments, but I must admit I am particularly concerned with the second, and that's where liberals chiefly hurt themselves IMHO.
I know some conservative (AKA republican) politicians aren't good on 2A issues, but over the past few decades is's been chiefly the liberal wing that has been leading the way in gun control legislation.
Also, it should be noted that a more "expansive" outlook is not necessarily a good thing. Many people tend to automatically think it is, but that doesn't make it so. The concept of "separation of church and state," for example, has IMHO been taken beyond what the founders intended in many instances. And when we see religious icons in some places, the idea they may "offend" some people has become far too accepted of an excuse. At some point I think we should tell people who become offended at seeing religious icons to simply grow a thicker skin.
I don't support theocracies .... OTOH secularism is also not the way to go either.
-
they wouldn't let me comment.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
-
I'm just tagging it so I can make my wife read it later.
-
I would wish some conservative judges (not all) would have a more "expansive" view of the first, forth, fifth & ninth (and tenth) amendments, but I must admit I am particularly concerned with the second, and that's where liberals chiefly hurt themselves IMHO.
I am sorry to say, but I think that is a mistake. I think the Amendments are an interlocking system. Privacy in your home is just as important as the right to own a gun for self-defense or for militia purposes, and preserving proper trial by jury is in and of itself a key feature to preserving an individual liberty. And I won't even talk about Gonzales v. Raich here, I'm liable to start throwing objects on par with LadySmith.
Also, it should be noted that a more "expansive" outlook is not necessarily a good thing. Many people tend to automatically think it is, but that doesn't make it so. The concept of "separation of church and state," for example, has IMHO been taken beyond what the founders intended in many instances. And when we see religious icons in some places, the idea they may "offend" some people has become far too accepted of an
I agree with you. I think the real purpose of secularism is not just to achieve a separation of church and state, but to eliminate religion from public life.
-
I would wish some conservative judges (not all) would have a more "expansive" view of the first, forth, fifth & ninth (and tenth) amendments, but I must admit I am particularly concerned with the second, and that's where liberals chiefly hurt themselves IMHO.
I am sorry to say, but I think that is a mistake. I think the Amendments are an interlocking system. Privacy in your home is just as important as the right to own a gun for self-defense or for militia purposes, and preserving proper trial by jury is in and of itself a key feature to preserving an individual liberty.
I am not saying the others are not important.
IMHO the second is what we will need when the others fail. It is the ultimate, last bulward against tyranny. Once that goes, what fear would their be on the part of politicians of destroying the others?
McCain-Feingold attacked the first amendment, and I was as against that as anything. Yes, there's dirt and ugliness in politics. Our founders never promised us that political campaigning would be a nice, well-mannered gentlemanly endeaver. And even back then politics was dirty a lot of times.
I will freely admit that one reason why I am prejudiced in favor of the second amendment is that I am a gun owner, and value my possessions. I have purchased several firearms that are valuable, and -- atleast to me -- inherited some from my father which aside from whatever their monetary value is, have a lot of sentimental value, and atleast one of these is of a model that has fallen under the eyes of real or potential gunbanners in some states atleast, if not federally. Maybe some of those bans are doomed, or have failed (such as HR. 1022) but the fact they have been proposed still concerns me.
But, certainly the entire Bill of Rights is absolutly important as a whole.
-
I'm pretty prejudiced against voting for a candidate who supports gun control legislation. So, Obama is out; no mater what. McCain has supported essentially running all gun sales through a FFL dealer so the paper work can be completed and NICs check done. We have enough laws. Guns aren't the problem. It is the people who don't respect human life who are the problem. Guess we need some people control and maybe we should start at the border.
-
Yes.
Have.
Will.
-
Obama: Well, Joe Biden, I think, is one of the finest public servants that has served in this country. It's not just that he has some of the best foreign policy credentials of anybody. And Democrats and Republicans alike, I think, acknowledge his expertise there.
But it's also that his entire life he has never forgotten where he came from, coming from Scranton, fighting on behalf of working families, remembering what it's like to see his father lose his job and go through a downward spiral economically.
And, as a consequence, his consistent pattern throughout his career is to fight for the little guy. That's what he's done when it comes to economic policies that will help working families get a leg up.
That's what he's done when it comes to, for example, passing the landmark 1994 crime bill, the Violence Against Women's Act. Joe has always made sure that he is fighting on behalf of working families, and I think he shares my core values and my sense of where the country needs to go.
-
do you think i didn't puke enough the first time i heard that?
anyway, i hate mccain on one fundmental level. but when i have to choose between that and guns, i'll take the guns everyday.
so yeah, i vote for guns.
-
Funny, I though the best way for a woman to defend herself against violence was to have a handgun in her purse that she knows how to use.
-
Sure.
However, it's probably not going to happen.
Someone who truly believes in the individual right to self-defense, and in limiting government interference with purchasing and owning a gun, probably also supports a lot of other things I value.
Conversely, someone who believes it's better for a woman to be helpless in the face of a rapist, to make sure that the state has more power by having the only guns around, probably also supports a lot of other things I detest.
-
When it comes down to the fact that neither of the candidates support me on any issues, yes, I turn to guns. Sort of a "When in doubt, cling to guns." type of mentality.
Actually, I think it's more cling to our rights.
-
I think single issue voters are silly.
Issues for me are weighted, and the gun issue has a LOT of weight, as compared to other issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) which have very little weight.
So, for instance, if a candidate came around that I felt was right on the gun issue, taxes, immigration, shrinking of government/expansion of freedoms and energy (an example of highly weighted topics) , but was wrong on abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, drug policy (an example of lowly weighted topics for me), then I could probably vote for that candidate.