Barack Obama solution to violence

Great Debates
1

My opinion of Barak Obama changed radically over the weekend after hearing about this speech, where he proposes a solution to the epidemic of violent crime we’ve seen in the past few years.

I thought violent crime was down, but I live in a tiny suburb nowhere near Chicago, so I’ll take his word for it that their playgrounds have become battlegrounds. After all - “A couple weeks ago, cops found an AK-47 near a West Side school,” he said. “That type of weapon belongs on a battlefield, not on the streets of Chicago.”
Near a school? Was it on a playground? Eh, never mind. Not important.

To find a solution to this deplorable state of affairs, it’s obvious he needed first to understand some of the causes, such as -

Apparently he called upon parents (particularly black fathers, according to the Tribune) to take a greater roll in raising their children. Makes sense to me, but I’m not sure how to go about it. Mandate father-son interaction? Pay people to quit their 2nd job? Maybe dump some of that Iraq war money into building affordable housing with community event centers? Or permanently ban certain cosmetic and ergonomic enhancements to rifles? That’s it! Bring back that fantastically successful “Assault Weapon” ban, by golly.

Unless, of course, you don’t have a standard reach and want an adjustable stock - because adjustable stocks are the second most dangerous thing on a rifle, right behind the ability to attach a knife to it. Yes. Finally we might see an end to the non-stop bayoneting on playgrounds by people with short arms!

Trying to find the connection between unloved children and removable muzzle brakes … :confused:

Unfortunately for me, I still like him better than any other major party candidate. Maybe I’ll vote for Obama and pray for a republican congress.
FYI - Here is weapon that is totally legal under the Assault ban (and was legally purchased during that time, along with several 30 and 40 round magazines) and here is one that was not - built after the ban expired.

Mods, I’m not angry so didn’t pit, nor did I feel this is worthy of GD, but if it doesn’t belong in IMHO, I apologize.

2

That sounds like a pretty ordinary, moderate Dem political speech to me. He’s not even calling for any new gun control laws. Of course he offers no real solutions for inner city violence but that’s because there aren’t any. This kind of speech is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It’s not even very liberal. I don’t see anything in that speech that Guiliani would disagree with “Enforce the laws we already have,” is a safe, politician’s non-answer. So is lamenting the absence of fathers.

It’s no answer, but I’ve heard worse. It doesn’t involve either a childish and unenforcable call for an outright gun ban, nor does it involve the asinine, wild west posturing that violence could be controlled if only everyone in the world was packing heat.

At least the beginning of Obama’s point gets somewhere in the direction of addressing root social pathologies. Calling on fathers to take responsibility is cheap and easy and really addresses nothing and challenges nobody but it doesn’t do any more damage.

3

He does call for new gun control laws, but otherwise I kind of agree with you (there’s a reason this isn’t in the Pit), it’s just that the last “Assault Weapon” ban was such a laughable failure, and the speech could have gone so well - Parents caring for their children, children with self respect and dignity, ban scary looking guns!

4

The more I hear Obama talk, the more I become convinced that he’s all style and no substance. I have yet to hear an original idea come out of his mouth, or even a unoriginal but fairly controversial one. Just safe, slightly left-of-center ideas that seem to be engineered to not piss off anyone. A classic empty suit.

5

Help me out I know absolutely nothing about guns. The first one looks like it can repeat fire by holding the trigger down and refilling those curved cartridges. The second maybe can’t repeat fire? Why would one need a repeat fire to go hunting anyway? Most of what I know about guns is from watching movies, and I don’t even really pay attention to them then either.

6

Except for the adjustable stock on the second, they are identical.
One bullet for each pull of the trigger - full auto’s are heavily regulated and have been for 70 years or so. The “assault weapons” ban dealt primarily with such things as pistol grips, folding or collapsible stocks, removable muzzle brakes (or flash suppressors), bayonet lugs (not the bayonets themselves, just the doohickey they attach to), and the like. The function of the rifle is immaterial, providing it’s a semi-automatic, which means something as harmless as a Ruger 10/22 can become a dreaded “assault rifle” with the addition of an aftermarket stock.
I quote assault rifle like that to emphasize that I’m not talking about selective fire weapons that traditionally fill the role between submachine and light machine guns. A true assault rifle is a Title II, and capable of automatic or burst fire (I think, look up “class III firearm”)

7

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

8

I don’t really think that’ll help, but it’s worth a shot.

9

Ah, the classic ‘nobody’s stopping people from hunting’ defence.

There are two specific things which are designed to keep Americans as individuals free from tyranny which are written into the Bill of Rights - a free press and the right to keep an bear arms. (There are other things which restrict or balance the power of Government to achieve the same ends written into the Constitution, but which are not designed for Joe and Sally Public to use, like the three bodies of Government). Free press means tyrants cannot prevent the public from knowing what they do. Keeping and bearing arms means that if a tyrant does succeed in muzzling the press, the citizenry is armed and can fight back directly against tyranny.

Most Liberals (including me) believe the First Amendment is the most important; most Conservatives believe the Second is just as important if not more so. But the thing that always bugs me is classifying the right to bear arms as a historic ‘we just wanna hunt’ right or as a means of self-defense - it’s silly. It’s nothing to do with hunting, it’s everything to do with keeping Americans free from tyranny.

All of that said, I think you can maintain your freedom just as well with semi-automatic ‘hunting’ weapons as with assault-style weapons, and you can defend your home just as easily with a shotgun as with an AR-15, if not better. So the argument that assualt-style weapons are a right is silly.

And I also think that every candidate is an ‘empty suit’ right now by necessity; it would be policical suidide for a candidate to start drilling down on policy right now, and Barack’s appeal and only chance is because he’s a moderate; if he was a flamin’ liberal and had gun control on his agenda, then I don’t think he’d stand a chance. Hillary’s getting hit hard because she does have some very Liberal policies as part of her platform, and that’s alienating moderates.

I do think he’s got it right - the only way to change this is not through government action, but through families and respect and that’s hard to legislate.

10

More likely it’s an advertising campaign by the gun industry to make and maintain a market. The population under Saddam in Iraq had plenty of guns; that didn’t protect a single freedom. When the secret police in Romania tried to fight back against the army, machine guns and rifles against tanks, the tanks smashed them; they sniped a soldier, the tank blew up that floor of the building the sniper was in. When the Iraqi resistance kills our soldiers, they generally use bombs, not guns, because the bombs actually work.

This “the government is scared of our rifles” bit is just nonsense. A real tyranny would roll right over the gun nuts, laughing all the while. If you are conspiracy minded, a more likely scenario than the “Guns for Freedom” one is that people are encouraged to put their trust in guns to protect them from tyranny because it won’t actually work; that’s more plausible than the “they wanna steal our guns so they can install a tyranny” bit. Not that I believe that it’s anything other than corporate greed, or vote pandering to the stupid.

11

I’m not debating the ‘gun nuts’ or what advertising is used by the gun lobby; I’m discussing the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The intent of the framers of the Constitution, based on writings in the Federalist Papers, was to arm the populace to prevent tyranny. No real debate. The debate comes in when you try to define what ‘armed’ means - does it mean a rifle or a shotgun? Or does it mean every citizen should have the right to keep a grenade launcher? Does it mean a militia, organised on the State or Local level?

The Fathers didn’t know about the technology, obviously, so the document itself and the supporting writings are less than descriptive, but I believe the intent was to have armed militias made up of private citizens in every state which could contest the Federal Government overreaching it’s power.

Speaking of stupid, the idea that our Army, made up of volunteers, would raise arms against the populace is pretty stupid as well, no matter what the CinC ordered. Iowa farm boys aren’t gonna start shooting Iowans who protest the government, and to believe otherwise is just plain stupid. And the National Guard, which is effectively a State Militia, is outside the direct chain of command of the US military (unless Federalized on active duty) for exactly that reason - the state governor is the ultimate commander of every national guard unit, not the President.

12

Two words: Kent State.

13

Bob, while I agree that Obama is getting way too touchy-feely new-age-hippie with those statements, I’m betting that he wasn’t referring to ‘second jobs’ when he was talking about the lack of fathers being part of their kids lives.

-Joe

14

Bit more complex than that. Kent State wasn’t a typical protest situation - it was a multi-day riot.

15

I think your post was the first to use “typical situation” in this thread.

-Joe

16

Actually, yours was the first, since Mr. Moto said “typical protest situation” and you left out a word.

Are you arguing that Kent State was a typical protest situation, and therefore a good example of the government shooting people for protesting the government, as askeptic alleged?

Regards,
Shodan

17

I’m saying that a “typical protest situation” isn’t.

Stating that it wasn’t one, and using that as justification for shooting doesn’t seem like the wisest course, especially when one is using it for purposes of saying “it can’t happen here”.

-Joe

18

Baloney. Protests are staged all of the time. Very few of them feature arson or shootings.

Except, of course, that I wasn’t using it as a justification for anything - merely pointing out that this particular extreme example proves little.

19

Armies throughout history have been used to oppress their own people; it seldom seems to bother them. As for it being all volunteer, there have always been plenty of people who like terrorizing and oppressing people or who are fanatically devoted to the government or the dominant religion; a government sliding toward tyranny would recruit and promote those people. Why you would expect a drafted army to be more enthusiatic about oppressing people I don’t know.

As for the National guard, either the governor would by part of the tyrannical government himself, or recruiting policies would be changed to attract the right sort of people ( wannabe jackbooted thugs, in other words ), or they’d be sent off overseas like now so they can’t interfere. Or any number of other things.

Tyranny is about political control, not guns.

20

But if people were protesting in such a way that their access to guns was a relevant consideration, then surely that situation is more extreme than what was happening at Kent state. Remember, the discussion is whether the army would roll over citizens with guns, and if the army will shoot extreme rioters, surely they will shoot extreme armed rioters.