Obama Good for Business

[zenman]

Gun sales have shot up (no pun intended) since the election. Some stores have doubled their sales.

[Steve James]

Ya think it's fear, or just hunting season?

[Michael]

Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Spurs Record Firearms Sales

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
November 7, 2008

Media skews record gun purchases as nutjob paranoia, yet Obama’s virulent hostility towards the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is on the record.

Record gun sales across the United States are not a result of misplaced paranoia, as the media would have it, but as a sensible response to Barack Obama’s virulent hostility to the second amendment, which is on the record and documented.

Many fear that Obama could move to disarm American gun owners, potentially utilizing the “civilian national security force” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military he promised to create during the campaign. Obama’s intention to re-instate the expired Assault Weapons Ban is partly behind the nationwide rush to purchase firearms.

“Sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms,” reports the New York Times today.

Obama’s disdain for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is clear - though he later denied it, in 1996 during his run for the Illinois State Senate, Obama told non-profit organization Independent Voters of Illinois that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a de facto national annulment of the second amendment.

Obama’s rhetoric that Americans have a right to bear arms is completely worthless, because he has consistently claimed that governments have the power to take that right away.

For example, in April 2008 Obama stated, “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”

During the 2004 debate over the assault weapons ban, Alan Keyes chided Obama, stating, “I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.”

Obama also cosponsored a bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month in 2000, supported the 2008 D.C. gun ban, voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection, and has consistently supported measures against concealed carry.

Obama is also a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which funds gun control groups in the U.S.

Obama’s first appointment since winning the election, soon to be chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, also has an established record in pushing for gun control.

Emanuel cosponsored H.R. 1312 (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005).

He also voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers (Oct 2005), voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse (Apr 2003), has supported so-called “smart gun” technology, which restricts usage of firearms and has been given an F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

It seems that Emanuel, whose father used firearms and explosives to full effect when bombing hotels and massacring civilians as a member of the terrorist Irgun group, doesn’t want to extend that right to law-abiding American citizens for means of self-defense.

Despite the corporate media’s efforts to skew record gun sales as the consequence of misguided paranoia of right-wing gun nuts, Obama’s public record lays bare his hostility towards the second amendment and strongly indicates that an Obama administration, backed by monopolized Democratic control of the legislature, will waste little time in undermining the second amendment and attempt to prevent Americans from exercising the right to defend themselves against criminals and a tyrannical government - whoever may be in power.

[Michael]

Obama Victory Means ‘Stronger Support for Sensible Gun Laws’

”Just look at a couple of the things Obama has proposed: a 500 percent increase on excise taxes for guns and ammunition, and a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or a park,” said the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre..

“Those two measures wouldn’t just decimate the firearms industry, they would kill it. That, in turn, would have a drastic effect on our military, because the same companies that sell guns to civilians are also the ones selling guns to the government. I wonder how Obama would feel about a multi-billion dollar bailout of the firearms industry, because that’s what just two of his proposals would require.”

The NRA said Obama’s judgment is as bad as his Second Amendment record.

For anyone who is geographically challenged, there is no city or town of any size with people living more than five miles from a school. Except for the most remote areas, five miles from a school is just about everywhere. Awesome constitutional scholarship to come up with that one.

[Walter Joyce]

I see Obama's actions in regard to regulating around guns as consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Guns are not without risk, risk that can impact on public health and safety. As such, guns are subject to regulation. He is merely regulating.

The common perception is that Consitutional rights are absolute.

They are not.

Obama is acting within well established policy for addressing these types of issues. An analogy can be drawn to 4th and5th Amendment rights. Those within the justice system who value those protection less have restricted their protections in application by creating exceptions in the case law that narrow those protections.

As always, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

2nd Amendment rights are still there, they may perhaps be narrowed a bit more, consistent with "original intent". You know, " a well armed militia...."

[Chris Fleming]

[Michael]

Who doesn't live within five miles of a school? This sounds like an extreme regulation that eradicates guns by making their sale impossible.

[Ben]

I see Obama's actions in regard to regulating around guns as consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Guns are not without risk, risk that can impact on public health and safety. As such, guns are subject to regulation. He is merely regulating.

The common perception is that Consitutional rights are absolute.

They are not.

Obama is acting within well established policy for addressing these types of issues. An analogy can be drawn to 4th and5th Amendment rights. Those within the justice system who value those protection less have restricted their protections in application by creating exceptions in the case law that narrow those protections.

As always, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

2nd Amendment rights are still there, they may perhaps be narrowed a bit more, consistent with "original intent". You know, " a well armed militia...."

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. "
That was part of a speech from 1787. It was written by 21 of the people present at the convention ,including Abraham Lincoln.

This shows that the intent you speak of was that the people should have arms so that they can form militias but that also said militias shouldn't be kept up in times of peace. That's how I read it anyway.

[Walter Joyce]

Ben:

I'd say you'd reading it correctly. Unfortunately speeches do not have the force of law. They may provide context, and if the speeches are given during the drafting of legislation they are considered the legislative history of the law in question As such they do have a level of persuasion for the interpretation of that law, but even that is limited. And rightly so, a legislator could say whatever he wanted in a speech, but for his ideas to become law he has to convince a majority of his fellow legislators.

WTJ

[dragontigerpalm]

I see Obama's actions in regard to regulating around guns as consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Guns are not without risk, risk that can impact on public health and safety. As such, guns are subject to regulation. He is merely regulating.

The common perception is that Consitutional rights are absolute.

They are not.

Obama is acting within well established policy for addressing these types of issues. An analogy can be drawn to 4th and5th Amendment rights. Those within the justice system who value those protection less have restricted their protections in application by creating exceptions in the case law that narrow those protections.

As always, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

2nd Amendment rights are still there, they may perhaps be narrowed a bit more, consistent with "original intent". You know, " a well armed militia...."

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. "
That was part of a speech from 1787. It was written by 21 of the people present at the convention ,including Abraham Lincoln.

This shows that the intent you speak of was that the people should have arms so that they can form militias but that also said militias shouldn't be kept up in times of peace. That's how I read it anyway.

Abraham Lincoln was born on Feb. 12, 1809.

[C-Hopkins]

I have a question to the objectors:

In the hypothetical, let's say Obama takes away all the guns. Then what?

What are you afraid will happen if they take away our guns?

[Ben]

I see Obama's actions in regard to regulating around guns as consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Guns are not without risk, risk that can impact on public health and safety. As such, guns are subject to regulation. He is merely regulating.

The common perception is that Consitutional rights are absolute.

They are not.

Obama is acting within well established policy for addressing these types of issues. An analogy can be drawn to 4th and5th Amendment rights. Those within the justice system who value those protection less have restricted their protections in application by creating exceptions in the case law that narrow those protections.

As always, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

2nd Amendment rights are still there, they may perhaps be narrowed a bit more, consistent with "original intent". You know, " a well armed militia...."

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. "
That was part of a speech from 1787. It was written by 21 of the people present at the convention ,including Abraham Lincoln.

This shows that the intent you speak of was that the people should have arms so that they can form militias but that also said militias shouldn't be kept up in times of peace. That's how I read it anyway.

Abraham Lincoln was born on Feb. 12, 1809.

I just copied it out of the book.

[Ben]

Ben:

I'd say you'd reading it correctly. Unfortunately speeches do not have the force of law. They may provide context, and if the speeches are given during the drafting of legislation they are considered the legislative history of the law in question As such they do have a level of persuasion for the interpretation of that law, but even that is limited. And rightly so, a legislator could say whatever he wanted in a speech, but for his ideas to become law he has to convince a majority of his fellow legislators.

WTJ

I agree with you.
I really don't like the wording of the second amendment. Its to vague.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One could read this as:
Anyone in a well regulated militia has a right have weapons and the govt can't infringe on that right.
OR
Militias are essential to a free state so the people have a right to have weapons(and the govt can't infringe on that right) so they can form militias.

I think when it was written they meant the second one but I would be fine with only militia members having gun ownership so long as the militias are run by the states and there are no weapons restrictions for the militia members at all.
That's not going to happen though.

[Walter Joyce]

I agree with you.
I really don't like the wording of the second amendment. Its to vague.

That was the point of my "original intent" question in the other thread.

Certain language in the constitution is crystal clear, the intent is obvious for specific reasons.

Other sections of the Constitution, like many sections of the Bill of Rights, were intentionally written vague and ambiguous. The reason is the framers wanted wiggle room for changes that society would undergo that would effect community standards and the loose language would leave room for interpretation as theses changes took place over time.

The problem with "original intent" zealots is that even as the language of these intentionally open sections was being drafted and in the period of time thereafter while the framers were still alive there was disagreement as to how these sections should be interpreted. Which begs the question, whose original intent?

I should also explain that the list of questions I posed in the other thread were used as examples of constitutional topics that still trigger intense debate. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions I posed, but the way in which you (as in you generally, not you, Ben) frame your responses illustrates your understanding of these issues and can also be an illustration of the political and philosophical underpinnings of your legal reasoning.

This vagary and room for interpretation has led many to assert that the Constitution is a living and dynamic document that can and should be interpreted differently as society progresses.

[Michael]

I see Obama's actions in regard to regulating around guns as consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Guns are not without risk, risk that can impact on public health and safety. As such, guns are subject to regulation. He is merely regulating.

Bush is infamous for creating "free speech zones" under the pretext of security, which effectively took away people's right to free speech, peaceful assembly, and to redress the government for grievances, three of the five protections in the First Amendment. Saying that guns stores can only exist in places that are five miles from any school is going even further than Bush's free speech zones.

The common perception is that Consitutional rights are absolute.

They are not.

Is that a strawman or a reminder to no one who has forgotten? There have been Supreme Court Justices who've said that the right to free speech was absolute.