# But...Obama Was Going To Take All The Guns! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 16, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405 "2013-01-16T18:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/381 "2013-01-30T19:57:19Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I have no idea how you could interpret my posts to be about the nature of science when it was clearly just pointing out the immediate hypocrisy of partisanship on this issue. I’ve explained exactly how your comment could be interpreted in this fashion. And given that you’ve aligned yourself with crazy assholes on nearly every facet of the gun issue, I would have had no reason to assume you’d break with them on the research issue in particular. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/382 "2013-01-30T19:58:56Z")
Well, aside from my long posting history supporting critical thinking and the scientific method, and the fact that no post gave no indication that I believed that the CDC should be barred from studying this subject, and the very obvious fact that my post was clearly a criticism of hypocrisy for someone else dismissing science based on their own biases, yes, obviously I am anti-science. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/383 "2013-01-30T20:05:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, such as a central government that might want to impose the abolition of slavery. But that still only applies to the purpose of a militia, not a blanket, absolute right. There’s got to be a phrase for the act of bringing up slavery anytime someone brings up state rights. This is the same central government that interned japanese Americans during WWII. They’re not infallible and to build in no checks to their power should probably involve more than your inclination to trust the government (did you trust them quite as much when bushw as in power?). > [@](#): > > In 1903, with the passage of the Militia Act. It preserved the notion of that the militia was every able bodied male from 18 to 45. The Vietnam draft was based on this notion. “[1]The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.” -[Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) > [@](#): > > Right, meaning there is no such thing as an absolute right, before which all other rights must give way when they conflict. In the case of the Second, those limits are even explicitly stated. I never said the right was absoluite. is aid that before you infringe on my right to bear arms, you had better have a better reason than “ooh, ar15s look scary” > [@](#): > > “Promote the general welfare”. As in “keep citizens alive”. And we’ve plastered this board with all the statistics on assault weapons and your argument doesn’t hold water. Can they ban guns altogether to promote the general welfare if I can prove that it will reduce the number of suicides? You’re also misapplying the general welfare clause. It is not authority to regulate, it is authority to spend tax money. > **[Taxing and Spending Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause)** > > The Taxing and Spending Clause (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause), Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Take The Cong... > [@](#): > > It’s easy to lose sight of reality when the discussion of rights and responsibilities in a society is allowed to become too abstract - which is what discussion of militias has been ever since the end of slavery, and which the claim of a limited right to be absolute has always been. What? > [@elucidator](#): > > Operative word being “reportedly”. What are the figures for intruders scared away by the very fact that somebody saw them and is likely to call the cops? You sound like Republicans protesting Nate Silver’s polling data. You are basically saying that studies conducted by the CDC have a pro-gun bias. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t know how you can take my post to somehow be anti-science. I’m clearly attacking him for being a hypocrite. He wants the CDC to be able to study gun violence, because they’re just the best entity to conduct such research. But then when he’s presented data from the vaunted CDC about something he doesn’t want to be true, he just dismisses it. It’s ridiculous. > > I don’t think there should be some sort of ban at the CDC for doing these studies. I don’t know if the CDC studies these sorts of things. If the CDC normally covers things like the demographics or other factors of violent crime, then by all means. If they have a political axe to grind on guns and don’t normally conduct that sort of research (again, I have no idea), then they should be discouraged from it - I don’t want public money used for what would essentially amount to political advocacy in that case, there are other entities like the DOJ who could take it. > > If it’s within the realm of normal CDC studies, and it passes the funding rounds where it’s deemed to be a worthwhile study, then sure, go ahead. The CDC probably IS the most competent agency to research gun violence. But they might not be best suited to study the effects of guns on society and crime. Frankly the gun nuts are going to go into full conspiracy mode if anyone implies that we would be better off with a disarmed citizenry. Tehre are gun nuts out there that consider the NRA to be traitors to the cause because they are so compromising. Just consider Elucidator the Gun Control equivalent of those guys. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/384 "2013-01-30T20:21:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > …You sound like Republicans protesting Nate Silver’s polling data. > > You are basically saying that studies conducted by the CDC have a pro-gun bias… I am? Wow, I had no idea that was what I was saying! Could I run my posts past you before I make them, so I can be sure what I’m saying is what I think I’m saying? I mean, its kinda embarrassing, to think I’m saying one thing and find out I’m saying something very different. Boy, is my face red! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/385 "2013-01-30T21:29:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > …Just consider Elucidator the Gun Control equivalent of those guys. Wow! This has really been a journey of self-discovery, talking to you. So I’m way out on the gun-grabber edge, out past the Feinstein Event Horizon? Well, I’ll be dipped! Had no fucking idea! Listen, help me out here. Always, since I was a little kid, always hated licorice. Anise seed flavoring of any kind, totally hate hate hate! Am I wrong about that, and really like it? Gosh, I sure hope not, because then I’d probably start eating it, and I fucking hate it! I still think Sean Hannity is a total asshole, right? If not, could you kinda break that to me in easy stages, I’m not ready to handle that all at once. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/386 "2013-01-30T21:53:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I never said the right was absoluite. is aid that before you infringe on my right to bear arms, you had better have a better reason than “ooh, ar15s look scary” This line is clever only when you deliver it to mouthbreathing fucktards. Our reason is not that firearms look scary. It is that roomfuls of dead schoolchildren look ascetically unpleasant. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/387 "2013-01-30T22:28:15Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This line is clever only when you deliver it to mouthbreathing fucktards. > > Our reason is not that firearms look scary. It is that roomfuls of dead schoolchildren look ascetically unpleasant. Are you seriously gonna stand on the gravers of dead children and say it all could have been avoided if only there were no assault weapons? You do realize that Adam Lanza had other guns, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/388 "2013-01-30T23:40:12Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > At least until people like you or Hitler take them away. Hitler expanded gun rights for most citizens and restricted sale and manufacture by Jews. Replace Jews with illegal immigrants and the NRA would leap at the proposal in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Miltonyz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Miltonyz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miltonyz)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/389 "2013-01-31T00:47:55Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This line is clever only when you deliver it to mouthbreathing fucktards. > > Our reason is not that firearms look scary. It is that roomfuls of dead schoolchildren look ascetically unpleasant. Are they more dead because he used a gun with a plastic stock rather then a wood stock? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/390 "2013-01-31T00:53:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There’s got to be a phrase for the act of bringing up slavery anytime someone brings up state rights. Yes, the phrase “historical context” might apply. “Anti-denialism” might as well. > [@](#): > > This is the same central government that interned japanese Americans during WWII. Which would, of course, not have happened if the JA’s all had M-1’s and organized themselves to resist. That’s what your argument amounts to. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It preserved the notion of that the militia was every able bodied male from 18 to 45. And turned the militias into the Guard. You asked what did that, I answered. Ignorance fought - or is it? > [@](#): > > I never said the right was absoluite. I know, and that’s why I was agreeing with you. Not everything is a fucking argument. > [@](#): > > is aid that before you infringe on my rig to bear arms, you had better have a better reason than “ooh, ar15s look scary” Know what? Don’t post drunk. > [@](#): > > Can they ban guns altogether to promote the general welfare if I can prove that it will reduce the number of suicides? Why not? You seem to disagree, if that’s the point you’re trying to apply. > [@](#): > > You’re also misapplying the general welfare clause. > It is not authority to regulate, it is authority to spend tax money. So “general welfare” is not what it says it is. Remarkable. And, to repeat, don’t post drunk. Nothing good comes of it. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/391 "2013-01-31T02:53:02Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Hitler expanded gun rights for most citizens and restricted sale and manufacture by Jews. Yeah, that’s the point. You only take guns away from the people you want to weaken. Or you take them away from everyone for benevolent purposes like the German Weimar government, then someone less benevolent can come across later and take advantage of the situation by arming his guys while excluding their guys. > [@](#): > > Replace Jews with illegal immigrants and the NRA would leap at the proposal in the US. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/392 "2013-01-31T03:38:08Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Yeah, that’s the point. You only take guns away from the people you want to weaken. Or you take them away from everyone for benevolent purposes like the German Weimar government, then someone less benevolent can come across later and take advantage of the situation by arming his guys while excluding their guys. While I’m generally in favor of pretty permissive gun ownership laws, this argument against them is just silly. **Whatever** kind of gun ownership laws a society enacts, if subsequently a strong political leader with wide popular support seizes dictatorial powers, he can rewrite the gun ownership laws to be whatever he damn pleases. Anybody who imagines that more permissive gun ownership laws under the Weimar Republic would somehow have hindered Hitler’s tyranny is living in a fantasy world. If you think gun ownership is a good thing in a stable and healthy society, you have to make the case for it _based on the prevailing conditions in that society_. Not based on speculative what-ifs about how much the guns would come in handy if the society’s rule of law suddenly started to crumble into a dystopia of bigotry and oppression. I can think of plenty of sinister apocalyptic scenarios in which it might be helpful for ordinary citizens to own guided missiles, but I don’t try to use them as arguments in favor of making guided missile ownership available to private individuals nowadays. Partly because I personally don’t think it’s a great idea for private individuals to own guided missiles, but also because I’m not a complete idiot and I know that kind of counterfactual speculation is not something reasonable people find persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/393 "2013-01-31T04:01:28Z")
> [@Miltonyz](#): > > Are they more dead because he used a gun with a plastic stock rather then a wood stock? Stupid comments rise to the level of fucking retarded when you don’t even know how to employ proper spelling or grammar. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/394 "2013-01-31T04:04:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If you think gun ownership is a good thing in a stable and healthy society, you have to make the case for it _based on the prevailing conditions in that society_. Not based on speculative what-ifs about how much the guns would come in handy if the society’s rule of law suddenly started to crumble into a dystopia of bigotry and oppression. So you think stable and healthy societies always remain so? Based on what? History? ---
**Author:** ![Miltonyz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Miltonyz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miltonyz)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/395 "2013-01-31T04:21:19Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Stupid comments rise to the level of fucking retarded when you don’t even know how to employ proper spelling or grammar. I’m sorry my grammar is poor. Were you unable to understand the question I was asking? If so could you please answer the question. If it is illegible I would be happy to rephrase the question ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/396 "2013-01-31T04:40:08Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > So you think stable and healthy societies always remain so? Based on what? History? No, of course they don’t. However, laws in a stable and healthy society have to be predicated _on the conditions that actually prevail in that society_, not on hypothetical doomsday scenarios about what that society might someday turn into if things really go tits-up. For example, it’s entirely possible that a stable and healthy society could be infiltrated by extraterrestrial alien pod people, who secretly take over the bodies of humans and seem completely normal. Until they suddenly attack and dismember an ordinary human close to them, with no warning except a fleeting funny look in their eyes. Under such circumstances, would it be reasonable and justifiable for ordinary humans to pre-emptively kill what appears to be a loved one behaving normally if they happen to see a fleeting funny look in the “loved one’s” eyes? Absolutely. Should our _existing_ laws permit killing somebody when you see a fleeting funny look in their eyes, just because someday the alien-pod-person-invasion scenario might actually happen? Fuck to the _NO_. Laws about gun ownership (or anything else) should be designed for the conditions of the society we have here and now, not for the conditions that might prevail if our society collapses into bloody chaos at some future date. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/397 "2013-01-31T04:47:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > For example, it’s entirely possible that a stable and healthy society could be infiltrated by extraterrestrial alien pod people, who secretly take over the bodies of humans and seem completely normal. Until they suddenly attack and dismember an ordinary human close to them, with no warning except a fleeting funny look in their eyes. Historically, how often have healthy societies become unhealthy? Historically, how often have healthy societies been infiltrated by extraterrestrial alien post people? These are not rhetorical questions, I would really like to hear your best estimates. > [@](#): > > Laws about gun ownership (or anything else) should be designed for the conditions of the society we have here and now, not for the conditions that might prevail if our society collapses into bloody chaos at some future date. Do you think it possible that the founding fathers of the USA thought a little further ahead than you, or maybe thought to prevent collapse into bloody chaos? Again, this is not rhetorical. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/398 "2013-01-31T05:02:37Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Historically, how often have healthy societies become unhealthy? In what form? You mean, how often have 21st-century developed western democracies dissolved into tyranny and chaos? Never. If you mean another particular form of a healthy society’s “becoming unhealthy”, then tell me exactly what you’re referring to. > [@Kable](#): > > These are not rhetorical questions, I would really like to hear your best estimates. If you want a specific answer, then ask a specific question. A specific gun policy can’t be predicated on a hypothesis so absurdly vague and non-specific as “society becoming unhealthy”. > [@Kable](#): > > Do you think it possible that the founding fathers of the USA thought a little further ahead than you, or maybe thought to prevent collapse into bloody chaos? Again, this is not rhetorical. Yes it is. Vague objections along the lines of “well maybe these revered historical figures were just a little wiser than you are, smartass!” are nothing but rhetorical. And if what you want is to prevent the collapse of an existing society into bloody chaos, then what you need are laws that are appropriate for _the conditions currently prevailing in that society_, which is exactly my point. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/399 "2013-01-31T05:11:45Z")
Bumper sticker version: _You make gun ownership legislation for the society you have, not for the society you fear you might wind up with someday if some unprecedented nationwide catastrophe makes the entire rule of law go belly-up._ You would think that this would be too obvious to need pointing out to people, but apparently not always. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/400 "2013-01-31T05:16:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In what form? You mean, how often have 21st-century developed western democracies dissolved into tyranny and chaos? Never. Not sure if I agree with that much but I’d like to see you cast a wider net. Like all the societies you are familiar with. If you want a specific answer, then ask a specific question. A specific gun policy can’t be predicated on a hypothesis so absurdly vague and non-specific as “society becoming unhealthy”. “Healthy” was your term. if it’s not clear to you I would be happy to have you clarify what you meant. > [@](#): > > Yes it is. Vague objections along the lines of “well maybe these revered historical figures were just a little wiser than you are, smartass!” are nothing but rhetorical. No it’s not. Maybe they were, or it’s impossible that they were. What do you think? > [@](#): > > And if what you want is to prevent the collapse of an existing society into bloody chaos, then what you need are laws that are appropriate for _the conditions currently prevailing in that society_, which is exactly my point. I’m sorry but I don’t think disarming citizens is a good way to prevent societal collapse. If you disagree I would be happy see your citations. Again I can give the example of gun control in the Weimar government of Germany, which didn’t do anything to prevent the later rise of the Nazi party. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405.md?page=21)