Hillary and Sniper Fire in Bosnia: What's the Defense?

[jayjay]

@Shayna

Yes, but it also says that came from the answer to a questions posed on the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998, fully 10 years ago!

If you look at what he’s done with regard to that issue (nothing), and what he says now about how he would handle legal gun ownership and supporting the 2nd Amendment vs how he would seek to control crime committed with guns, you’ll find a very different message.

Flip-flopper!

runs

[SenorBeef]

@Shayna

Yes, but it also says that came from the answer to a questions posed on the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998, fully 10 years ago!

If you look at what he’s done with regard to that issue (nothing), and what he says now about how he would handle legal gun ownership and supporting the 2nd Amendment vs how he would seek to control crime committed with guns, you’ll find a very different message.

Do you happen to have any links to updated information about his stance on gun control?

Has he taken any action to support gun control on the state or national levels?

[Shodan]

@Shayna

Yes, but it also says that came from the answer to a questions posed on the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998, fully 10 years ago!

Well, that’s reasonable, but if he is running at least in part on his experience as a state Senator, then it is perfectly fair to take what he said then seriously. Unless he has specifically renounced that position, one would assume he still holds it.

If you look at what he’s done with regard to that issue (nothing), and what he says now about how he would handle legal gun ownership and supporting the 2nd Amendment vs how he would seek to control crime committed with guns, you’ll find a very different message.

“Different” in the sense of “he no longer supports that proposal”? I am going to need a cite that this is true before I assume his political positions have an expiration date.

Because he hasn’t changed his tune on guns very much. He is in favor of the ban on handguns in DC, he opposed allowing people to violate local gun laws in cases of self-defense, and so forth. He thinks the DC ban is constitutional, about which we shall see.

He seems to be a typical liberal Democrat on gun control. He makes some vague noises about respecting the Second Amendment, but he has never opposed any gun bill on Constitutional grounds.

Regards,
Shodan

On preview - cite.

[Shayna]

@SenorBeef

Do you happen to have any links to updated information about his stance on gun control?

Well, the link I was responding to has some very recent quotes (bolding mine).

Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. **And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. **We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

His website says (bolding theirs):

PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
Respect the Second Amendment: 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 believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights 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. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf

@SenorBeef

Has he taken any action to support gun control on the state or national levels?

As far as I can tell, he’s said to have “regularly supported gun control measures” while in the Illinois Legislature, but specifics are limited. The only instances that are highlighted are his support of “a ban on semiautomatic “assault weapons” and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month,” but I have no idea whether either of those issues passed or not (I’m thinking not), nor do I know if he had any input, personally, or simply went along with the party-line votes on them.

Additionally, he “opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes,” arguing with other Democrats that “the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street,” and that it should be up to local governments to use their own discretion as to whether charges should be filed on a case-by-case basis. The legislation ultimately failed by a rather large margin.

He parted company with fellow Democrats, however, when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons, which did pass.

cite

It all sounds kindof reasonable to me, but then I’m a tree-hugging liberal, so what do I know?

[Shayna]

@Shodan

Well, that’s reasonable, but if he is running at least in part on his experience as a state Senator, then it is perfectly fair to take what he said then seriously. Unless he has specifically renounced that position, one would assume he still holds it.

Well, unless you know exactly how the question was posed, I’m not sure you can make a reasonable assumption about his position as it was, even then, let alone now. Rather than “assume”, I’d say it’s more reasonable to look to his actual record to determine where his stance on semi-automatic weapons is. Do you know of any? I’ve outlined all I know above.

@Shodan

Because he hasn’t changed his tune on guns very much. He is in favor of the ban on handguns in DC, he opposed allowing people to violate local gun laws in cases of self-defense, and so forth. He thinks the DC ban is constitutional, about which we shall see.

He seems to be a typical liberal Democrat on gun control. He makes some vague noises about respecting the Second Amendment, but he has never opposed any gun bill on Constitutional grounds.

I have no idea if he’s ever opposed any gun bill on Constitutional grounds. Do you have a cite for that claim? The cite you provided was just a link to the same cite that’s already been posted in this thread, and the one to which I was replying.

[Shodan]

@Shayna

Well, unless you know exactly how the question was posed, I’m not sure you can make a reasonable assumption about his position as it was, even then, let alone now.

Wow! You really are determined to dodge this one, aren’t you?

I have no idea if he’s ever opposed any gun bill on Constitutional grounds. Do you have a cite for that claim?

Well, yes, that was the cite. The only time he ever supported anything besides more restrictions on guns was his support for concealed carry for retired police officers. And he said specifically that he thought the DC gun ban was Constitutional. He stated several times (in the quotes on my cite) that he thought things like limits on handgun purchases, are perfectly fine.

So, in every single instance where Obama is on the public record, he has never opposed any gun restriction on Constitutional grounds. If you would like to come up with a counter-example, feel free.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

So, in every single instance where Obama is on the public record, he has never opposed any gun restriction on Constitutional grounds. If you would like to come up with a counter-example, feel free.

Can you cite an example of Obama being faced with a gun bill which was unconstitutional?

[SenorBeef]

@Shodan

The only time he ever supported anything besides more restrictions on guns was his support for concealed carry for retired police officers.

I don’t consider that to be a pro-gun thing, not at all. I’m firmly opposed to such laws myself.

Off-duty and retired police have no more right to defend themselves and their families than an ordinary citizen. Laws like that create a situation in which ordinary people become second class citizens on the issue of self defense. It’s not pro-gun to support various gun rights only available to police.

As for the rest of it - the token “hunter” talk scares me. The quotes you listed are typical of gun control advocates - they want to placate the millions of assholes who joined the NRA to protect their duck gun, but don’t really care about the second amendment. Divide and conquer - work on one segment of the gun owning public while placating the rest.

He also said, in regards to licensing, not that he’s opposed, but that he doesn’t think he can get it done. Licensing is clearly, blatantly in violation of the second amendment… you can’t license rights.

That said, I didn’t mean for this to become a big hijack. Maybe we could discuss gun control as a winning political proposition, and Obama’s positions specifically on another thread.
Edit: Thanks Shayna for providing that info. You’ve done a good job doing your research to present the facts in these threads.

[Shodan]

Well, as I mentioned, we’ll see about the DC gun ban. The point is, Obama talks a bit about respecting the Second Amendment, but he doesn’t think it really means anything. That’s why he can talk about respecting an Amendment that talks about a right not being infringed but want to infringe it in all kinds of ways.

Notice he talks about how he thinks people should be able to use guns in self defense. But, when push comes to shove, he still wants to be able to prosecute them if they violate gun control laws, even if they needed the gun to keep from getting killed.

Regards,
Shodan

[E-Sabbath]

If I recall correctly, the questionnaire in question was filled out, not by Mr. Obama, but by an aide.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C906328B-3048-5C12-007DE179B9A5D1D5

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”

The campaign said his views have been consistent, and points out that his positions have always been more nuanced than can be conveyed in yes-or-no answers.

Obama, who makes an issue of his opponents’ consistency in the presidential race, has tempered many of those 1996 views during his quick rise to the pinnacle of American politics. He now takes less dogmatic positions many of those hot-button issues -- in the view of some Democrats, he abandoned the stands as he rose through the ranks....

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career.

It appears to have been answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only, without space for nuance.

I should also point out that Mr. Obama was a constitutional law professor, and he does believe the second amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Shayna]

@Shodan

Wow! You really are determined to dodge this one, aren’t you?

After the detailed posts I’ve written above, how in the hell can you say I’m “determined to dodge” anything? You made a rather bold assumption with no evidence to back it up. I told you I’d found all the information I could on it and asked if you had anything to support your contention. That’s certainly not my idea of dodging. I submit that by not answering my question, but instead making a ridiculous accusation, that it is you who is dodging. Care to answer it now, or shall we accept E-Sabbath’s cite that proves I was right afterall?

@Shodan

So, in every single instance where Obama is on the public record, he has never opposed any gun restriction on Constitutional grounds. If you would like to come up with a counter-example, feel free.

I’m not the one who made the claim, so it’s not up to me to come up with a counter-example. Especially since you haven’t come up with an example to counter.

@SenorBeef

I don’t consider that to be a pro-gun thing, not at all. I’m firmly opposed to such laws myself.

Off-duty and retired police have no more right to defend themselves and their families than an ordinary citizen. Laws like that create a situation in which ordinary people become second class citizens on the issue of self defense. It’s not pro-gun to support various gun rights only available to police.

I think you make a good argument for that position. However, Senator Obama said he supported it because their lives were necessarily at greater risk than the average citizen due to the nature of their employment. I have no idea if he had any studies to back that assertion up, but he did at least have a distinction that he felt separated the two that also makes sense.

@SenorBeef

As for the rest of it - the token “hunter” talk scares me. The quotes you listed are typical of gun control advocates - they want to placate the millions of assholes who joined the NRA to protect their duck gun, but don’t really care about the second amendment. Divide and conquer - work on one segment of the gun owning public while placating the rest.

Well, if all he mentioned were hunters and gamers, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But at least in one of those quotes he included gun use for protection, saying, “And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.”

@SenorBeef

He also said, in regards to licensing, not that he’s opposed, but that he doesn’t think he can get it done. Licensing is clearly, blatantly in violation of the second amendment… you can’t license rights.

I’m not a Constitutional scholar, so I have no idea. You could very well be right, and any legislation he tried to introduce of that nature could get shot down on those grounds. That’s why we have a Legislature and the Judicial branch, so he doesn’t get to be “The Decider”.

@SenorBeef

Edit: Thanks Shayna for providing that info. You’ve done a good job doing your research to present the facts in these threads.

You’re welcome.

[RTFirefly]

@SenorBeef

you can’t license rights.

First Amendment rights can apparently be licensed, since one’s ability to broadcast over the public airwaves requires a license, and the courts have ruled repeatedly that the First Amendment applies to broadcast speech.

[Shodan]

@Shayna

After the detailed posts I’ve written above, how in the hell can you say I’m “determined to dodge” anything?

It was mostly the part where you were trying to claim that you couldn’t tell anything about Obama’s positions merely from what he said.

It’s fairly obvious what’s going on here - Obama is publicly on the record with a rather extreme and controversial position, you realize completely how absurd that position sounds, and you are flailing around trying to find some reason to discount what he said. There isn’t anything to help you out here - Obama is pretty consistently anti-gun. He said what he believed about banning semi-automatics, no one has called him on it, and you are going to do your best to obfuscate any discussion of the issue on the SDMB. Thus you simply ignore all evidence and call for cites that have already been presented and analyzed.

I suspect it is rather like the Wright stuff. Obama lived most of his political life in the cozy cocoon of liberal politics, where rather extreme positions are more or less taken for granted. The flood lights of the national stage are rather a different matter - the anti-white rants of a demagogue like Wright strike as jarring a note as the idea of banning semi-automatics with moderate and conservative voters.

You made a rather bold assumption with no evidence to back it up. I told you I’d found all the information I could on it and asked if you had anything to support your contention. That’s certainly not my idea of dodging. I submit that by not answering my question, but instead making a ridiculous accusation, that it is you who is dodging. Care to answer it now, or shall we accept E-Sabbath’s cite that proves I was right afterall? I’m not the one who made the claim, so it’s not up to me to come up with a counter-example. Especially since you haven’t come up with an example to counter.

Here you are simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la - I can’t hear you”.

Like I said - dodging the question.

Regards,
Shodan

[Thorium_Indium_Potassium]

@BobLibDem

Peggy Noonan of the WSJ got an email with the best first hand account of the Bosnia scene:

“Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.”

Jack Bauer for President!

[stolichnaya]

I suspect it is rather like the Wright stuff. Obama lived most of his political life in the cozy cocoon of liberal politics, where rather extreme positions are more or less taken for granted. The flood lights of the national stage are rather a different matter - the anti-white rants of a demagogue like Wright strike as jarring a note as the idea of banning semi-automatics with moderate and conservative voters.

Or he lived on the south side of Chicago, a city which bans handguns and experiences relatively little blowback for it, and an area of that city with sincere concerns about gun violence, and he faily well represented the will of his constituents in regard to gun issues.

Tying this to Wright is gratuitous. But not unsurprising.

[SenorBeef]

@RTFirefly

First Amendment rights can apparently be licensed, since one’s ability to broadcast over the public airwaves requires a license, and the courts have ruled repeatedly that the First Amendment applies to broadcast speech.

The act of speaking isn’t being licensed, it’s the act of using public resources to do so.

Similarly, you don’t need a license to drive - if you own your own private race track you can go nuts without a license - it’s the act of using public roads that’s licensed.

Also similar to concealed carry, where you (generally) don’t need a license to own/use the gun and carry it on your own property, but require a license to do so on public property.
I’m not necesarily advocating this position, but it’s more nuanced than to say “the freedom of speech is licensed.”

[RTFirefly]

@SenorBeef

The act of speaking isn’t being licensed, it’s the act of using public resources to do so.

Nonetheless, the courts have held - improperly, IMHO, but the fact stands - that broadcast speech itself is a right, as well as speech in general. And there’s no separating broadcast speech and the use of public resources.

[asterion]

I don’t think this bit of last Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher has been posted yet.

[BobLibDem]

@Shodan

He seems to be a typical liberal Democrat on gun control. He makes some vague noises about respecting the Second Amendment, but he has never opposed any gun bill on Constitutional grounds.

That might be because a lot of us think there are no Constitutional grounds to oppose gun control. When the Supremes come in with their ruling, your view and my view will be irrelevant anyway.

[Shodan]

@BobLibDem

That might be because a lot of us think there are no Constitutional grounds to oppose gun control.

Right - Obama doesn’t think the Second Amendment really means anything. That’s why he can talk about respecting Second Amendment rights, because he doesn’t believe they really exist.

Regards,
Shodan