Nightline on Obama, gun control

[unixronin]

Nightline broadcast a good and pretty balanced segment last night, discussing Barak Obama's gun control position and the massive gun buying rush that's going on across the US now by people concerned that if they don't buy them now, they won't be able to.

Particular points to note:

• The customer who keeps repeating to the reporter, "Never mind Obama's words, look at his actions."¹
• The gunshop owner reporting Obama supporters coming into his store wearing their Obama buttons, who just voted for him but are still afraid he'll ban guns.

[1]  You might have seen me say this once or twice.  Assuming you've been paying attention.

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

If the Democrats are smart, they won't touch guns or gay marriage until after the 2010 mid-term elections are over. Banning guns or approving same-sex marriage at the federal level will alienate a lot of middle-of-the-road voters, who might turn Republican.

I think a lot of gun owners are working people who are pretty down on Bush and Republicans for the current state of the economy and what seems like an unwinnable war in Iraq. Hell, from my perspective, the one and only thing the Bush administration has done right over the last eight years is to allow the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. (The PRMA, of course, promptly adopted legislation to ensure it would continue at the state level in MA.) A lot of them were probably thinking they had a Hobson's choice between voting for the guy who'll let them keep their guns (McCain) or the guy who might fix a lot of the stuff that Bush & Co. broke (Obama).

SCOTUS's decision in Heller will, of course, have an effect on what kinds of legislation Congress can pass. Heller wasn't law during the Clinton administration, which was the last time we had to worry about this. The good side to Heller is that outright bans (or, presumably, regulations that are sufficiently onerous as to amount to a de facto ban) are illegal. The bad side is, Heller opens the door to "reasonable regulation". At its worst, various jurisdictions will test the limits of "reasonable". And they may also play the "salami game", passing multiple rounds of "reasonable" restrictions until all you have left is a theoretical "right" that isn't very useful at all. (And yes, "slippery slope" arguments are valid here, because you can point to many other nations that have progressed over the centuries from relatively unregulated ownership of arms to near-total bans by means of incrementally-implemented "reasonable" regulations.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of gun owners are working people who are pretty down on Bush and Republicans for the current state of the economy and what seems like an unwinnable war in Iraq.

Which isn't actually as un-winnable as you'd think from the way the media reports it. Things I've learned over the past few months have made me realize that, intended or not, it actually turned out to be a pretty damn good move strategically because it sucked a whole lot of insurgents out of the hills of Afghanistan (where we, like everyone else who's ever tried it, were having a damned hard time fighting them) onto the plains of Iraq, where we kicked them up one side of the street and down the other. Iraq's new government, although it still has an unpleasant tendency toward sectarian nastiness, is looking stronger and better almost by the day.

I still wish the Bush administration had been a bit more bloody honest about it in the first place, though, instead of operating on a rotating lie-of-the-week basis.

[rbos.livejournal.com]

Now that's an argument I can actually get behind.

SEMICOLON HOWEVER COMMA, invading a sovereign nation as a diversionary strategy should only be a small part of a much larger picture.

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

The whole idea of 'winning' in Iraq is dishonest. We don't have an enemy in the traditional sense. We are a sometimes referee, sometimes participant in a vast turf war among many, many factions. I'd really have like to see someone ask McCain "What exactly do you mean by winning in Iraq?" The answer would be:

1. Something that is either basically dishonest or betrays a willful misunderstanding of what is happening in Iraq.

2. "It's over when General Petreus says it is." Now, the thought of the military setting military objectives should scare the crap out of any thinking person. (Footnote: The military should have a say in what it needs to achieve objectives and whether it exists, and for most of this war, it didn't have that, either).

The Iraq war is such an amoral exercise. I'm deeply ashamed of it, and I'll sleep better when it's behind us.

Anyhow, if Obama has a history of tough gun control as a state and U.S. senator, he might not as president. He represented one of the most anti-gun districts in the country. Now he represents a pro-gun country. It's like LBJ who fought segregation until he was president and he then defended it.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'd really have like to see someone ask McCain "What exactly do you mean by winning in Iraq?"

That would, indeed, be a very pertinent question. Personally, my best shot at a definition would be "When Iraq has a stable, self-sustaining government that governs with the consent of the Iraqi people, an independently functioning economy, and no insurgent threat strong enough to pose a significant threat to the Iraqi people or government."

Anyhow, if Obama has a history of tough gun control as a state and U.S. senator, he might not as president. He represented one of the most anti-gun districts in the country. Now he represents a pro-gun country. It's like LBJ who fought segregation until he was president and he then defended it.

You have a point, and I'd very much like to see that outcome. I'm afraid that so far, the early signs seem to indicate he intends to go on as he always has. I'm willing to have him prove me wrong — hell, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this one — but I'm not willing to just accept his or anyone else's word for it until I see it reflected in his actions.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

Oh wow, after having viewed the clip... Cheaper Than Dirt is one of the two internet retailers I've bought a lot of stuff from in the past. So that's what their retail store looks like.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I also note the gun control lawyer saying it would be a phenomenally stupid thing to push in his first term. We will see if he is stupid.

I am more worried about his support for expanding H1B's and restricting fair use rights, and other speech restrictions. I am also fearful that Joe Biden will push him to expand police state policies beyond what even King George dared.

Both sides are all about reducing constitutional rights, the sets just differ.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

OMG *swoon*, someone else in this world who "gets" the Police State ambitions of the Left, instead of just blindly considering them the Superhero League of Justice and Freedom.

As I am fond of saying, I'd almost prefer the foreign wars to massive increases in police numbers, equipment and legal powers. They're an army on "my" soil, which to me is a lot more dangerous than an Islamic fundamentalist fucktard in the hills halfway around the world.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

I keep reminding my left-leaning friends that Joe Biden authored large parts of the Patriot Act back in the 1990s as a response to the Oklahoma City bombing, and about the Clipper chip, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. None of them seem inclined to listen. The proportion of people under 30 especially who think that the world is going to be kittens and rainbows and unicorns and fluffy pink bunnies starting January 21, 2009, is just mind-boggling. I guess maybe if you're not old enough to remember some of the missteps of the Clinton administration--which mostly came in Clinton's first term--you might hold the view that Democrats can do no wrong.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

I'm positively aghast at some of the cult-like unquestioning cult of personality behavior I've been seeing around me recently.

And hell, I even voted for him as the far lesser of the two evils, but I'm certainly not under the impression that in a two-party system governing a World Empire that one choice is all evil and the other is all sympathy cards and muffin gift baskets.

[dr-nebula.livejournal.com]

However. I seriously doubt he would even remotely consider action on (assault) guns until the BIG stuff (economy/bank crisis, Iraq, oil/alternative energy -etc)has been dealt with.

However, down the line - he *might*, if he has enough political clout and popularity to withstand the shitstorm that is sure to follow. This sounds more a 2nd term thing - it is political suicide for his first term.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I would like to think that he's not that stupid. I would like to think that the Democratic Party can learn from experience and realize that gun control is unpopular with a greater number of people than it is popular with. (Pretty much the same as, say, gay marriage, actually.)

However, so far the Democratic Party has disappointed me at almost every turn. I've never been a huge fan of the Republican Party either, but it wasn't until Bush, Cheney and Rove that they managed to sink to the Democrats' level of sheer suck.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

I too would like to agree with you, but damn, it's an action item on the change.gov site *already*.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Crime is also not as big a concern among the electorate as it was in the 1988 and '92 elections. While there's been a recent uptick in violent crime that can be put down to the faltering economy, it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 70s, 80s, and early part of the 90s, especially in the wake of the crack epidemic. So the general public just isn't as concerned about gun crime as they used to be. If the economy gets worse during Obama's first term, and crime rises as a result, that may give the anti-gun forces some more momentum--but if the economy gets worse and voters vote their wallets, then Obama may end up a one-term President.

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

So, unixronin, this isn't meant to start any kind of an argument, but I have a question for you that comes from genuine lack of knowledge. I've read your postings on guns. I can understand the position that restricting the purchase of semi-automatic guns infringes on a person's rights. However, why would someone need a semi-automatic? Surely not for hunting...?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Before I answer that, let me ask you a question: What is your understanding of what "semi-automatic" means, and what if anything makes it special?

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

Well, your question itself was highly educational.....as it caused me to do a bit of research. I, like many people, had an incorrect definition. So, let me rephrase my original question. Why would someone need a gun that will reload automatically after each shot? (Or am I still missing the definition?) It seems that it sort of negates the "sporting" aspect of hunting. (Thus says the person who has never hunted an animal, owned a gun, or fired one.) What would people use them for?

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

What if you need a quick second shot? Not to mention, hunting isn't the only sport using firearms, I shoot highpower rifle competition in the service rifle category, which means I'm restricted to an M1 Garand, M1A/M14, or AR15/M16 in "as issued" configuration. A total AW ban would completely destroy my sport (people shot with grandfathered firearms before, and they changed the rules to allow rifles without flash suppressors). Not to mention, not all hunting is "sport hunting". A farmer protecting his livestock from coyotes wants multiple shots quickly.

Plus there's self-defense. And you can bet people on the border with Mexico are wanting multiple shots quickly, did you see the firearms the Mexican police confiscated yesterday? There's an open war on our southwest border, whether people realize it or not, and it's NOT staying on the Mexican side.

[skellington.livejournal.com]

I'll let unixronin follow up on the subject of semi-automatics, but there's another underlying assumption you're missing.

It is a person's right AND responsibility to provide for their own self defense. The government (at any level) has no responsibility nor ability to arrest people before they commit crimes. (Imagine how big of a mess we'd have if the government started locking up people because they claimed they were ABOUT to commit a crime..)

So as a constitutional matter, (and a common law right to self defense going back to Roman times), the primary purpose of a firearm is self defense. It is not to participate in recreation (either sport shooting or hunting).

A semi-automatic, or a revolver, is much more suitable for self defense than a single-shot pistol or break action shotgun.

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

(Sorry, original reply was mis-posted.)

That's an interesting point. It opens the whole can of worms about who gets to define "self defense". Do you use the government's definition or define it according to your own perspective?

I can see how a semi-automatic would be more suitable (and convenient) for self defense purposes.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

No. Not for hunting. For having an effective tool for the defence of the country against enemies foreign and domestic.

Though, I will be using my semi-auto variant AK-47 or FAL for hunting wild boar this upcoming season. If one is unlucky, one can sometimes gain the attention of an entire herd of wild bacon-on-the-hoof, rather than just the unfortunate gent you've selected for dinner duties. Since those guys have tusks which are quite capable of ripping a person up rather viciously, it's nice to have more discouragement on tap.

Though, there are still limits. NM law, for instance, limits semi-autos used for hunting to a 5 round magazine restriction.

[rbos.livejournal.com]

My own answer would be, to have them in case the government goes too far. An armed populace is one that the government must reckon with carefully.

I'm Canadian, and very much in favour of gun control: a violent society is not one I want to live in. However the path the USA has chosen is to arm the populace aggressively in order to curb internal and external threats.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

I'm actually a citizen of both countries, but live in Canada. My husband commented last night that he finds if fascinating that Canadians own more guns per capita than the U.S. (many of which aren't registered), yet we have fewer gun crimes (percentage wise) than the U.S.

Living in Toronto, I do favour handgun control.

(kind of) slipery slope

[milktree.livejournal.com]

I'm going to side-step the somewhat technical question about semi-auto guns and go to another question: Why restrict them?

Or, another way to ask a leading question that (I hope) gets to the same point:

Why do you need the internet for your free speech? What's wrong with the USPS, soap boxes in the town square, and buying ad space in the newspaper? Would it be reasonable to outlaw bulk emails? (emails to lists or with more than three people on the "To:" line, for instance) The answer is an absolute "NO!"

That's not the same thing as saying "you should be able to say anything at any time." (e.g.: "Fire!" in a theater). Restrictions on speech should have overwhelmingly compelling reasons, not just "That's too effective" or "we don't like what you say" or "we don't like your accent"

I realize that's a somewhat inflammatory way of saying it, but the fundamental issue is about constitutional rights. You don't restrict them without very very good reason.

Re: (kind of) slipery slope

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

I agree that it is a slippery slope. Why would I restrict them? Well, I'm not entirely sure I would. However, I have very little faith in most people's ability to control their emotions. And, angry, out of control people with guns are more likely to shoot someone then those same people without guns. Two weeks ago a man at a bar two blocks from my house got pissed off with someone, pulled out a semi-automatic and wounded four people and killed an innocent bystander in the space of seconds. So, I suppose I've been thinking about it a bit more recently.

I am curious though why police officers must go through so much firearms training and must document every time they draw their weapon, yet we don't require private citizens who own guns to go through an equal amount of training (and successfully pass some sort of test). It seems like a no-brainer to me.

I personally don't believe that an armed populace is a safer one.