Obama on Guns

[jonks]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Arc...litico_Gun_Control.htm

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?

[NOTICE HE DOESN'T DENY SUPPORTING THE BAN OR THAT HE SAID IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL]
Obama: 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.
Feb 11, 2008
Watch It: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
************************************

Here's an article from today:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...6/obama-camp-disa.html

Basically, his campaign today is claiming that when an Obama aid in Nov 2007 articulated that Obama felt the DC ban was Constitutional, he was "inartful" and mistaken because "The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to [Obama spokesman] Burton, because [Obama] has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment."

Really? Seems like he had a clear position as far back as February when he answered the question above. But wait, when asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

So his aid articulated the campaign's position last November, Obama reiterated his stance in February, yet in April he says he hasn't formed an opinion because he hasn't looked at the evidence? Or did his earlier position not track well with polling groups in swing states?

Nuance or wavering or bullshit, you decide.

Even if you like Obama and agree with his current position, if you can figure it out, voters don't like this whole dancing thing he's doing.

Now let see, lupi and PJ and Loki may make a sort of nodding agreement here, Vic will call me a troll because he hates me, AP will make a wittily sarcastic historically referenced post that I will no doubt enjoy reading, eskimo will logically deconstruct my entire post and probably have me agreeing with him by the time I finish reading it, and butterbean will call me a i love you. Have at it.

 

[eleison]

While browsing for more info on the scotus decision, I saw this message from an anonymous poster about how Obama was "disavowing himself from the dc ban" . I felt it was kinda funny



OBAMA WILL END UP DISAVOWING FROM HIMSELF
HE DISAVOWED JEREMIAH WRIGHT
DISAVOWED 20 YRS OF SO-CALLED CRAZY CHRISTIANITY
DISAVOWED FLEGER WHOM HE GAVE $200,000
DISAVOWED MUSLIMS
DISAVOWED ALL HIS FRIENDS
DISAVOWED PUBLIC FUNDING
DISAVOWED HAMAS AND CUBA
ANYTHING TO GET WHITE VOTE
EVERYTHING INDER THE BUS.
WELCOME TO THE CHANGAMANIA, NEW FLIP-FLOPPER, BARACK "FAST EDDIE" OBAMA
YOU AINT GETTING ME FOOLED, OBAMA. THIS WHITE VOTE WILL GO TO WAR HERO JOHN MCCAIN OR PERHAPS HIL;ARY.

TJ, THE CLINTONITE, MAN WITHOUT A PARTY..DISILLUSIONED ABOUT THE DNC

 

[jonks]

I just realized the SC decision is actually a bad thing for McCain since it pushes the "Obama's gonna take your guns away" boogieman to the background. Unless he plays the spectre of Obama appointments to the SC reversing the 5-4 decision, but that's pretty remote right now. McCain probably wishes they'd held on till after November with this one.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: jonks
I just realized the SC decision is actually a bad thing for McCain since it pushes the "Obama's gonna take your guns away" boogieman to the background. Unless he plays the spectre of Obama appointments to the SC reversing the 5-4 decision, but that's pretty remote right now. McCain probably wishes they'd held on till after November with this one.

I think it will actually be good for him as he can play on the SC nominee. The decision should not have been that close and if Obama gets to nominate someone it could be overturned... or other things like that.

 

[Xavier434]

Perhaps I am missing something here. What I am reading into this whole thing is that Obama has always been a supporter of stricter gun control due to their illegal usage on the streets, but he never stated himself that he believed that the DC handgun ban was constitutional back in Febuary. Today, he still supports stricter gun control and has stated himself this time that he has not taken sides regarding the DC ban. To me, that sounds like nothing has changed.

 

[Dari]

Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: jonks
http://www.ontheissues.org/Arc...litico_Gun_Control.htm

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?

[NOTICE HE DOESN'T DENY SUPPORTING THE BAN OR THAT HE SAID IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL]
Obama: 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.
Feb 11, 2008
Watch It: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
************************************

Here's an article from today:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...6/obama-camp-disa.html

Basically, his campaign today is claiming that when an Obama aid in Nov 2007 articulated that Obama felt the DC ban was Constitutional, he was "inartful" and mistaken because "The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to [Obama spokesman] Burton, because [Obama] has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment."

Really? Seems like he had a clear position as far back as February when he answered the question above. But wait, when asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

So his aid articulated the campaign's position last November, Obama reiterated his stance in February, yet in April he says he hasn't formed an opinion because he hasn't looked at the evidence? Or did his earlier position not track well with polling groups in swing states?

Nuance or wavering or bullshit, you decide.

Even if you like Obama and agree with his current position, if you can figure it out, voters don't like this whole dancing thing he's doing.

Now let see, lupi and PJ and Loki may make a sort of nodding agreement here, Vic will call me a troll because he hates me, AP will make a wittily sarcastic historically referenced post that I will no doubt enjoy reading, eskimo will logically deconstruct my entire post and probably have me agreeing with him by the time I finish reading it, and butterbean will call me a i love you. Have at it.

No, you ruined it. There's too much pressure now. So I'll just pre-empt Butterbean and say "i love you."

Actually, I think you're spot on here. It sounds like Obama has an opinion, but after focus-testing it, he realizes it isn't as popular as he had hoped and he's trying to backtrack. I'd admire him if he stuck to his guns (pun only slightly intended) and reiterated his position from earlier: namely, that there is a difference between guns intended for hunting (rifles, shotguns), sport (rifles and marksman pistols), and "other" (submachine guns, assault rifles, many handguns). Generally speaking, people aren't hutting with AR-15s or taking their MP5k to the firing range. Also generally speaking, it is guns from the "other" category that are being used more frequently in the commission of crimes. If Obama had stuck to his original argument and laid it out logically, I would have respect for that, even if I disagree with it (my views on gun control have shifted dramatically since even last year). As it stands, he sounds like he's pandering, and that's no good.

That said, I'm still not voting for McCain...

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

He's said he's for the ban of sale and transfer or ANY semi-automatic weapon

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

No, you ruined it. There's too much pressure now. So I'll just pre-empt Butterbean and say "i love you."

Actually, I think you're spot on here. It sounds like Obama has an opinion, but after focus-testing it, he realizes it isn't as popular as he had hoped and he's trying to backtrack. I'd admire him if he stuck to his guns (pun only slightly intended) and reiterated his position from earlier: namely, that there is a difference between guns intended for hunting (rifles, shotguns), sport (rifles and marksman pistols), and "other" (submachine guns, assault rifles, many handguns). Generally speaking, people aren't hutting with AR-15s or taking their MP5k to the firing range. Also generally speaking, it is guns from the "other" category that are being used more frequently in the commission of crimes. If Obama had stuck to his original argument and laid it out logically, I would have respect for that, even if I disagree with it (my views on gun control have shifted dramatically since even last year). As it stands, he sounds like he's pandering, and that's no good.

That said, I'm still not voting for McCain...

I disagree with part of that. I don't think he has swayed from him original opinion at all. The only thing that I believe has changed is people's perception of that opinion since he elected not to even take a firm stance on the DC handgun ban. His stance on handguns and gun control in general has not changed which is what really counts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks
http://www.ontheissues.org/Arc...litico_Gun_Control.htm

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?

[NOTICE HE DOESN'T DENY SUPPORTING THE BAN OR THAT HE SAID IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL]
Obama: 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.
Feb 11, 2008
Watch It: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
************************************

Here's an article from today:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...6/obama-camp-disa.html

Basically, his campaign today is claiming that when an Obama aid in Nov 2007 articulated that Obama felt the DC ban was Constitutional, he was "inartful" and mistaken because "The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to [Obama spokesman] Burton, because [Obama] has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment."

Really? Seems like he had a clear position as far back as February when he answered the question above. But wait, when asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

So his aid articulated the campaign's position last November, Obama reiterated his stance in February, yet in April he says he hasn't formed an opinion because he hasn't looked at the evidence? Or did his earlier position not track well with polling groups in swing states?

Nuance or wavering or bullshit, you decide.

Even if you like Obama and agree with his current position, if you can figure it out, voters don't like this whole dancing thing he's doing.

Now let see, lupi and PJ and Loki may make a sort of nodding agreement here, Vic will call me a troll because he hates me, AP will make a wittily sarcastic historically referenced post that I will no doubt enjoy reading, eskimo will logically deconstruct my entire post and probably have me agreeing with him by the time I finish reading it, and butterbean will call me a i love you. Have at it.

i love you!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Perhaps I am missing something here. What I am reading into this whole thing is that Obama has always been a supporter of stricter gun control due to their illegal usage on the streets, but he never stated himself that he believed that the DC handgun ban was constitutional back in Febuary. Today, he still supports stricter gun control and has stated himself this time that he has not taken sides regarding the DC ban. To me, that sounds like nothing has changed.

Obama, through his staff, said that the gun ban was constitutional.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

Now Obama is blaming his staff...again. When Obama was asked point blank, "you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you?ve said that it?s constitutional," no where in his response did Obama dispute that he said it was constitutional.

Obama has also never objected to Chicago's ban on guns.

He's been dancing around the subject because Dems know from previous experience that supporting gun bans is a loser in the general election.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Queasy
When Obama was asked point blank, "you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you?ve said that it?s constitutional," no where in his response did Obama dispute that he said it was constitutional.

Further, if you watch the video link, you actually see him nod in acknowledgement when the question is asked at those points.

He's been dancing around the subject because Dems know from previous experience that supporting gun bans is a loser in the general election.

Yep.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
i love you!

Concise and powerful. I'm convinced. You're good.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
No, you ruined it. There's too much pressure now. So I'll just pre-empt Butterbean and say "i love you."

That said, I'm still not voting for McCain...

Me either. Hey, you preempted eskimo too.

Originally posted by: Vic
Troll

Ok, I made that one up.

 

[JSt0rm]

I lived in DC for 4 years. It was fairly tame during the time I was there but there were a couple of instances of serious gunfights. This mostly revolved around the gang ms-13 that took hold of Columbia heights area. This in itself is insane because the houses there were going for 400k to 500k. This finally blew up into a gunfight that raged on Mount Pleasant ave (this area is very busy with pedestrian traffic) at 2pm in the afternoon 3 summers ago. Bullets ended up hitting a bus driver and a postal worker along with gang members. Now I honestly don't think having guns legalized would of stopped that but I also know those gang members had illegal guns. I mean if I owned a home there i wouldn't of run out on the street and fired on gang members . There are too many.

We will see though. Gun violence did start to go down in the city after the ban. People can draw that this was because of the economy or other reasons and maybe they had a impact but to say the ban had no effect on gun deaths in the district would be silly. All I can say is I felt safer knowing people didn't have guns there (in general) then I would if they do.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I lived in DC for 4 years. It was fairly tame during the time I was there but there were a couple of instances of serious gunfights. This mostly revolved around the gang ms-13 that took hold of Columbia heights area. This in itself is insane because the houses there were going for 400k to 500k. This finally blew up into a gunfight that raged on Mount Pleasant ave (this area is very busy with pedestrian traffic) at 2pm in the afternoon 3 summers ago. Bullets ended up hitting a bus driver and a postal worker along with gang members. Now I honestly don't think having guns legalized would of stopped that but I also know those gang members had illegal guns. I mean if I owned a home there i wouldn't of run out on the street and fired on gang members . There are too many.

We will see though. Gun violence did start to go down in the city after the ban. People can draw that this was because of the economy or other reasons and maybe they had a impact but to say the ban had no effect on gun deaths in the district would be silly. All I can say is I felt safer knowing people didn't have guns there (in general) then I would if they do.

No it didn't. Right after the ban was implemented it was at 135 and now it is at 148. It's in the CNN article. I'll find it for you.

EDIT: Here you go.

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I lived in DC for 4 years. It was fairly tame during the time I was there but there were a couple of instances of serious gunfights. This mostly revolved around the gang ms-13 that took hold of Columbia heights area. This in itself is insane because the houses there were going for 400k to 500k. This finally blew up into a gunfight that raged on Mount Pleasant ave (this area is very busy with pedestrian traffic) at 2pm in the afternoon 3 summers ago. Bullets ended up hitting a bus driver and a postal worker along with gang members. Now I honestly don't think having guns legalized would of stopped that but I also know those gang members had illegal guns. I mean if I owned a home there i wouldn't of run out on the street and fired on gang members . There are too many.

We will see though. Gun violence did start to go down in the city after the ban. People can draw that this was because of the economy or other reasons and maybe they had a impact but to say the ban had no effect on gun deaths in the district would be silly. All I can say is I felt safer knowing people didn't have guns there (in general) then I would if they do.

No it didn't. Right after the ban was implemented it was at 135 and now it is at 148. It's in the CNN article. I'll find it for you.

EDIT: Here you go.

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

I could understand those statistics indicating the gun ban was ineffective if it was looking at the year before and after the ban was enacted. But a 32 year stretch of time? There are so many other variables that could factor in to that statistic that it is completely worthless to look at it as a measure of the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the gun ban. How do these rates compare to other rates nationally? Has the population increased in Washington DC? Do we have per capita gun-related murder statistics? What is the definition of "gun-related murder," and has it changed?

Simply put, this statistic means nothing without further corroborating evidence.

 

[Vic]

I wouldn't have called you a troll. Obama is just trying to be a pragmatic 'uniter' in a nation of bickering ideological extremists. Not necessarily a wise course of action IMO, particularly when he has made it clear that he supports the 2nd amendment. However, in the meantime, the Pubs are trying yet again to red herring an entire election off a single issue that the federal govt should not have any power over anyway.

 

[jonks]

McCain reacts with biblical gusto, if a tired retread:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...eme-courts-gun-ruling/

Senator John McCain took the opportunity to reinvigorate a familiar line of attack on his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama. ?Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today?s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right ? sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,? Mr. McCain said.

**********

Guess when you're down so far in the polls the highest you can reach is still a low blow

 

[Vic]

What good does the right to gun ownership do for McCain supporters when they are far and away the least likely to ever pick up their guns in the cause of revolution? It's an irony I've never quite wrapped my brain around. Status quo establishment conservatives stressing about their right to bear arms in a revolution whose cause they would never support, while liberal reformists work to limit that right. C'mon people... ALL our rights are important. You can't just cherry pick one or 2 and fancy yourself a patriot.

Meh.... this is why I hate you all

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: jonks
I just realized the SC decision is actually a bad thing for McCain since it pushes the "Obama's gonna take your guns away" boogieman to the background. Unless he plays the spectre of Obama appointments to the SC reversing the 5-4 decision, but that's pretty remote right now. McCain probably wishes they'd held on till after November with this one.

I think it will actually be good for him as he can play on the SC nominee. The decision should not have been that close and if Obama gets to nominate someone it could be overturned... or other things like that.

I agree. McCain can say we are 1 supreme court vote from losing 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: jonks
I just realized the SC decision is actually a bad thing for McCain since it pushes the "Obama's gonna take your guns away" boogieman to the background. Unless he plays the spectre of Obama appointments to the SC reversing the 5-4 decision, but that's pretty remote right now. McCain probably wishes they'd held on till after November with this one.

I think it will actually be good for him as he can play on the SC nominee. The decision should not have been that close and if Obama gets to nominate someone it could be overturned... or other things like that.

I agree. McCain can say we are 1 supreme court vote from losing 2nd Amendment rights.

Heller could not have resulted in a 'loss' of 2nd amendment rights regardless of the outcome.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I lived in DC for 4 years. It was fairly tame during the time I was there but there were a couple of instances of serious gunfights. This mostly revolved around the gang ms-13 that took hold of Columbia heights area. This in itself is insane because the houses there were going for 400k to 500k. This finally blew up into a gunfight that raged on Mount Pleasant ave (this area is very busy with pedestrian traffic) at 2pm in the afternoon 3 summers ago. Bullets ended up hitting a bus driver and a postal worker along with gang members. Now I honestly don't think having guns legalized would of stopped that but I also know those gang members had illegal guns. I mean if I owned a home there i wouldn't of run out on the street and fired on gang members . There are too many.

We will see though. Gun violence did start to go down in the city after the ban. People can draw that this was because of the economy or other reasons and maybe they had a impact but to say the ban had no effect on gun deaths in the district would be silly. All I can say is I felt safer knowing people didn't have guns there (in general) then I would if they do.

No it didn't. Right after the ban was implemented it was at 135 and now it is at 148. It's in the CNN article. I'll find it for you.

EDIT: Here you go.

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

I could understand those statistics indicating the gun ban was ineffective if it was looking at the year before and after the ban was enacted. But a 32 year stretch of time? There are so many other variables that could factor in to that statistic that it is completely worthless to look at it as a measure of the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the gun ban. How do these rates compare to other rates nationally? Has the population increased in Washington DC? Do we have per capita gun-related murder statistics? What is the definition of "gun-related murder," and has it changed?

Simply put, this statistic means nothing without further corroborating evidence.

Statistics aside, are you in any way asserting that Washington D.C. does NOT have a reputation for being crime ridden and one of the oft-mentioned "murder capitals" of the US? Look a few posts above for some recent evidence of the ineffectiveness of the gun ban. Arguably, the 32 year span between the two figures, above, IS relevant because 32 YEARS is plenty of time for the ban to take effect and make a difference. Evidently it did not, at least for criminals.

I will, of course, not argue that the ban was ineffective at removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and we all know what kind of menace those people are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Statistics aside, are you in any way asserting that Washington D.C. does NOT have a reputation for being crime ridden and one of the oft-mentioned "murder capitals" of the US? Look a few posts above for some recent evidence of the ineffectiveness of the gun ban. Arguably, the 32 year span between the two figures, above, IS relevant because 32 YEARS is plenty of time for the ban to take effect and make a difference. Evidently it did not, at least for criminals.

I will, of course, not argue that the ban was ineffective at removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and we all know what kind of menace those people are.

You are attempting to use that number in a vacuum though, that's the whole problem. You have to look at ALL the things that affect murder rates. How has the economy in DC been? Has poverty increased? Racial segregation on the rise? Increase in drug trafficking? Etc... etc.

It can go both ways too, say they banned guns and then the economy in DC went through the roof and everyone got rich. Would the decrease in crime be the product of the gun ban? Of course not. I don't have the statistics for DC so I have no idea. It would appear that the gun ban has not been particularly effective, but there are just way too many factors people are ignoring.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Statistics aside, are you in any way asserting that Washington D.C. does NOT have a reputation for being crime ridden and one of the oft-mentioned "murder capitals" of the US? Look a few posts above for some recent evidence of the ineffectiveness of the gun ban. Arguably, the 32 year span between the two figures, above, IS relevant because 32 YEARS is plenty of time for the ban to take effect and make a difference. Evidently it did not, at least for criminals.

I will, of course, not argue that the ban was ineffective at removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and we all know what kind of menace those people are.

You are attempting to use that number in a vacuum though, that's the whole problem. You have to look at ALL the things that affect murder rates. How has the economy in DC been? Has poverty increased? Racial segregation on the rise? Increase in drug trafficking? Etc... etc.

It can go both ways too, say they banned guns and then the economy in DC went through the roof and everyone got rich. Would the decrease in crime be the product of the gun ban? Of course not. I don't have the statistics for DC so I have no idea. It would appear that the gun ban has not been particularly effective, but there are just way too many factors people are ignoring.

Right. The thing that immediately jumped to my mind was population. If DC's population doubled in that period but murders remained roughly the same, you could claim that the gun ban had been effective. There are so many factors that affect crime rates beyond gun ownership; pointing to only one statistic and trying to use at as proof of a point as complicated as predicting murder rates is going to be unreliable at best.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jonks
McCain reacts with biblical gusto, if a tired retread:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...eme-courts-gun-ruling/

Senator John McCain took the opportunity to reinvigorate a familiar line of attack on his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama. ?Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today?s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right ? sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,? Mr. McCain said.

**********

Guess when you're down so far in the polls the highest you can reach is still a low blow

The last 4 months have been nothing but free media coverage for the other side since his race has been over that long. Seeing how he's only 4 points down after that period, I think he'd be ok with that.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Perhaps I am missing something here. What I am reading into this whole thing is that Obama has always been a supporter of stricter gun control due to their illegal usage on the streets, but he never stated himself that he believed that the DC handgun ban was constitutional back in Febuary. Today, he still supports stricter gun control and has stated himself this time that he has not taken sides regarding the DC ban. To me, that sounds like nothing has changed.

Obama, through his staff, said that the gun ban was constitutional.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

Now Obama is blaming his staff...again. When Obama was asked point blank, "you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you?ve said that it?s constitutional," no where in his response did Obama dispute that he said it was constitutional.

Obama has also never objected to Chicago's ban on guns.

He's been dancing around the subject because Dems know from previous experience that supporting gun bans is a loser in the general election.

Alright, you pretty much sold me here. Although I do not believe that Obama would try to put the hammer down on taking away everyone's handguns if elected like some people fear. I think he will leave that up for others to decide whether it be the states or whatever. Regardless, if this topic is as crucial to the general election as you describe then I do not blame him for walking the path he has chosen. I feel that there are much bigger fish to fry over the next 4-8 years. I can deal with Obama playing the "political game" for lack of better words in order to dodge this bullet and get into office.