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.

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

Well, if Obama was promising not to push gun control laws, I'd expect him to keep that promise no matter his record. I haven't heard of any such promise, but it's not an issue I follow with much attention.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Exactly. He hasn't made any such promise. He tells shooters he supports the Second Amendment, then turns around and tells his supporters he's in favor of more gun control.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Obama doesn't have to push it. Does anyone really think that if Congress drops a new gun control bill on his desk that he's going to say 'Now, now, guys...I didn't push for this, so I'm going to veto it. You have to wait until I ask for it.' Obviously, he will sign it.

The President can try it influence (and often does), but does not set Congressional priorities.

[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.