Obama and the attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Obama directed funds towards anti-gun legal scholarship as a director on the Joyce Foundation, yet another leftist foundation board that he sat on. Fortunately their efforts failed with the recent Heller decision, but only by 5-4, which is scary that we were one vote away from losing the 2nd Amendment. I swear I find another shocking association of Obama's every day, it seems. This man has more radicals for friends than Woodstock had hippies.
posted by Michael Wotka @ 1:21 AM
4 Comments:
At October 08, 2008 10:30 PM ,
Unknown said...
"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
From Obama's DNC acceptance speech. I know you probably don't believe him, however, he has put it out there. I have to say that I agree with the sentiment (ie support 2d amendment, but with fair regulation). Knowing gun owners (namely your dad and family, and my old boss), and having been shown around firearms by those people with such care and respect, I have become a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. However, I think there is a balance to be struck.
I would ask you, Mike, what is to be done to keep firearms out of the hands of crooks. Over here in Shaw, it's a serious problem. What are your thoughts specifically on reducing gun violence? Do youthin that regulation that tracks firearms more effectively is too great a burden on the 2d amendment?
Matthias
At October 09, 2008 2:53 AM ,
Michael Wotka said...
While Obama's comment may sound sincere, it is incredibly ignorant and sensationalist. As far as fully automatic AK-47s (which would keep firing when the trigger is held until empty), sale and manufacture of new models is illegal in the US and has been for some time, while ownership of one, or any fully automatic (like an M-16 or Uzi) requires a very thorough licensing and background examination by the ATF, as well as very expensive taxes and licensing fees. Crimes with such weapons are very rare, and usually only when they are stolen and used by criminals (also rare). As for the semi-automatic version, that is basically a single fire per trigger pull rifle that looks dangerous. While they can hold large clips, those are also illegal over a certain size, and many hunting rifles are much more powerful and can take similar clips. Still, crimes with rifles are also rare. Most gun crimes occur with handguns, ie revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. This is primarily because they are concealable. And they are usually illegally obtained.
The fact is Obama has backed, through his actions on the board of the Joyce Foundation, significant anti-gun scholarship in legal journals to try and influence judges into re-interpreting the 2nd Amendment into a collective right, rather than an individual one. Luckily for us, we dodged the bullet with the Heller decision, but only by one vote.
As for the wider problem of gun violence, it is a challenge, but the fact is that every single state that has enacted a concealed carry law has seen a noticeable reduction in crime rates. Meanwhile, the UK banned private gun ownership under Tony Blair and violent crime has literally doubled there. No joke, London is a very dangerous place now. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions, like a waiting period and background check, but so much of the gun trade is illegal. The criminals aren't the ones following the rules, in most cases. So I guess a step up in enforcement would be a good idea, but if you try and patrol a lot more in high crime areas people claim racism, as has happened in Chicago recently (where,on an aside, there have been more murders than there have been US deaths in Iraq in 2008). As for tracking, there are already more than 500 million out there, so that would be pretty difficult to achieve. I doubt Obama has ever even shot a gun before.
At October 09, 2008 10:26 AM ,
Unknown said...
I agree with you about the use of the AK-47 in the examplke, though I took it more rhetorically.
I too know that the problem is primarily handguns. Gun ownership I would guess is fairly high in my neighborhood.
I am personally most concerned with solutions to the problem of illegal guns. There has been a lot of gun violence in my neighborhood this year, and the crooks are winning (few arrests, some of the good guys disarmed). A justice dept. The crooks are robbing houses to obtain clean guns too (a justice dept investigator had her firearm taken--it was later used to shoot at a cop, but recovered, and the police took a gun away from one of my neighbors after he fired a warning shot at some thieves--he fired over their heads and sent a bullet wizzing down the street. They came back (I presume to get his gun, but the police already took it) and robbed his apt. There was a murder (I had the pleasure of listening to the family screaming over the corpse), and an attempted murder where a guy was shot multiple times in front of his children. The violence seems to be mostly "in-house" but the related crimes affect the community very broadly.
I'm really tired of it, I live right in the middle of it, and am desperately seeking solutions. I'm pretty sure that solutions should include increased control regulation.
Thanks for the reply Mike. I'm trying to post in a way that might be more interesting to you (and have more common political ground for discussion), and less likely to piss you off...
At October 09, 2008 3:15 PM ,
Michael Wotka said...
I certainly enjoy the discussions. As for your neighborhood, that is unfortunately the reality of living in the city of St. Louis. That is why so many live in west county and St. Charles, these things don't happen there (unfortunately nothing else does, either). That is why St. Louis has a third of the population that it did fifty years ago.
Things happen near my place too. The Commerce Bank across from my apartment got robbed last week (right before the debate), and my building and several stores in my dad's building have been burglarized in the last three years (not my place, fortunately). But that doesn't make me want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Sounds like your neighbor should have fired more than warning shots. It is thugs doing this, and they are the problem. Take Chicago, with the worst murder rate in the US this year. Guns are more regulated in Cook County than anywhere in the US. Gun shops are illegal and all owners must be licensed and registered. Hasn't made any difference, and I would argue it has made it worse (same with DC). When the criminals know that the police are more likely to disarm the citizenry, as in your neighborhood, they can and will operate with impunity. I wish the flow of illegal guns could be curbed, but in a country as free, open, and large as ours, it is very difficult. What other regulations would you suggest?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home