Conffederate
Confederate

February 29, 2008

Questions on Obama's Views of Gun Rights


Barack on Guns: Yippie Ki Neigh?

I sent the following to the Barack Obama campaign's media contact page earlier today. I'll be very interested in their response, providing of course that they do respond.

There seems to be so ambiguity on Senator Obama's stance on various aspects of the ownership of firearms that I would like to get cleared up.

According to the campaign web site, his view on firearms ownership is as follows:

"Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

This statement does not address a key reason that literally millions of Americans say they own firearms, which is for self defense.

What is Senator Obama's position on Americans owning firearms for legal self defense?

Related to that question, what is Senator Obama's position on the licensing of Americans to carry concealed handguns, which is now a legal option in 40 states?

The campaign statement does not address literally tens of millions of firearms legally owned by Americans at this present time for reasons other than hunting and sport shooting, including handguns, which at one point in the Illinois legislature Mr. Obama said he would like to see banned.

Does Senator Obama still feel that handguns should be banned in America? If he does not still support a ban on handguns, why has his position changed?

Also on his Illinois legislative record are statements that he would like to see all semi-automatic weapons banned.

Does Senator Obama still feel that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned in America? If not, what semi-automatic weapons does he view as being acceptable for civilian use, and why has his position changed? Please explain his views in as much detail as possible.

Thank you very much for your time.

I'll be very interested to see if Obama maintains his previously held and rather absolutist positions on the subject, or if he has, as was speculated this morning, flip-flopped on the subject to pander for votes.

I suspect that if Texans knew of his previous record, they may want their hat back.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at February 29, 2008 02:51 PM
Comments

None of the three likely next presidents are going to be any friends to gun owners.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 29, 2008 03:07 PM

Regardless what he says, he's anti-gun as far as self-defense. He can say whatever; he'll sign any anti-gun legislation and appoint anti-gun judges.

He's on record recently saying that Chicago and Washington D.C. ordinances are reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: capitano at February 29, 2008 03:08 PM

indeed, the "so ambiguity" is palpable.

Posted by: bend at February 29, 2008 04:45 PM

Q: Is Obama a gun grabbing liberal?

A: Yes.

End of question and answer session.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at February 29, 2008 07:01 PM

So Obama believes the Founding Fathers felt it was important to add skeet shooting and popping squirrels to the Bill of Rights? Hmm. Those constitutional law classes he taught must have been interesting...

Posted by: jt at February 29, 2008 07:19 PM

As a proud gun owner (I'll challenge any one of you to a shoot-off at 25 yards with a GI .45) and defender of the 2nd amendment, it's tough to be absolute on this amendment.

It's that qualifying phrase that makes this a sticky argument. SCOTUS, if I remember right, is supposed to rule on this for the first time since the 30's, and that'll be interesting.

I'm not a big fan of DC or Chicago's law, but I honestly don't know if it's unconstitutional and anyone who says different doesn't know his Constitutional law.

That's why this upcoming case will be watched so intently.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at February 29, 2008 09:36 PM

It's that qualifying phrase that makes this a sticky argument.

Its not a "qualifying phrase", its a statement of rationale.

Do you know what the statutory Federal definition of "militia" is? There is one.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 1, 2008 08:09 PM

(I'll challenge any one of you to a shoot-off at 25 yards with a GI .45)

I will take that challange. Come on down to my range sometime ;).

Anyway. All I can say to this story is this.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

Posted by: Matt at March 1, 2008 11:08 PM

"There seems to be so ambiguity on Senator Obama's stance on various aspects of the ownership of firearms"

To be fair, he is ambiguous on every issue.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 2, 2008 11:26 PM