Obama’s views on gun control align with battleground areas’
Dante Chinni
Posted: 07.21.2008 / 11:01 AM PDT
Every four years, America’s attitude toward guns and gun control becomes a topic of discussion as candidates strike a balance between arguments about “public safety” and “owners’ rights.” The result is usually a photo op featuring the Democrat decked out in hunting gear and the Republican giving a speech about topics such as “trigger locks” and the responsibilities that come with gun ownership.
The gun issue may play a bigger role in the 2008 race between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. The US Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in June that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun puts the focus on gun control in two ways.
First, the ruling shows that the court is evenly divided and just one new appointment could alter future rulings on gun control. Second, and perhaps more important, the decision may set the high court as the arbiter for a series of individual gun cases in coming years – who can have which weapons and where.Senator Obama latched on to the part of the ruling that acknowledged that gun rules are “subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.” Senator McCain, for his part, applauded the decision, saying it proved that gun ownership is “a fundamental right – sacred.”
So what are Americans’ attitudes toward gun control when looking through the lens of Patchwork Nation’s 11 community types? It turns out that more people seem to show sympathy for Obama’s views – especially in battleground communities that may be key in November.
In the latest county-by-county data available on the topic, a 2004 Annenberg survey question asked people whether the government should do more, less, or “about the same” when it came to restricting the “kinds of guns people can buy.” The response: A majority of people in nine of the 11 community types wanted more to be done.
That is particularly true among residents in wealthy suburban counties (“Monied ’Burbs”), where 63 percent said they want more governmental restrictions on gun purchases. These counties are likely to be crucial on Election Day. Home to more than 84 million people, “Monied ’Burbs” divided their votes between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
Increased gun restrictions are also favored in growing and diversifying counties (“Boom Towns”) – 62 percent of people there said they wanted the government to do “more.” Boom Town counties, too, figure to be a battleground community type in 2008. Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have already spent a lot of time visiting these locales.The two community types where the majority of people wanted less, the same, or no restrictions are Republican strongholds – places with high concentrations of evangelical voters (“Evangelical Epicenters”) and rural farming communities (“Tractor Country”).
In these deeply conservative parts, where McCain has struggled to make inroads with voters, the Arizona senator’s “sacred” viewpoint may help him.
How the gun issue cuts is far from clear, however. Guns are an issue for which candidates carefully choose their words depending on the audience they’re addressing. Even immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, Obama’s and McCain’s comments were far from Shermanesque and were open to interpretation – Obama’s in particular.
The numbers of people wanting more restrictions in some communities were not much more than 50 percent. They could move up or down depending on the specific restrictions and the types of guns targeted.
Still, the fact that most communities – particularly 2008 battlegrounds – favor more restrictions on guns indicates that the candidates may not need to show their gun-culture bona fides.The big question for voters in key places may not be where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, but how and to what extent each wants the government to involve itself in America’s gun laws.
And different kinds of communities are likely to want different answers.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pm PDT
Dante Chinni concludes”… the candidates may not need to show their gun-culture bona fides.
The big question for voters in key places may not be where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, but how and to what extent each wants the government to involve itself in America’s gun laws.
And different kinds of communities are likely to want different answers.”
Senator Obama’s bona fides should certainly gladen the heart of those who favor more restrictions.
For eight years, ‘94- ‘01, prior to becoming an Illinois State Senator,Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “researchers.” He voted millions in grants for anti gun rights groups.
In political office, he voted to allow lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry;to re-impose the Clinton “assualt weapon” ban; to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting;he has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership:he supports local gun bans in Chicago, D,C. and other cities.He voted to uphold local Illinois gun bans and to criminally prosecute people who use firearms in self-defense. Obama also proposed to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, that would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
The US Constitution, Second Amendment reads: 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.
Barack Obama should certainly gladen the hearts of those who favor more infringements.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
July 21st, 2008 at 8:38 pm PDT
Senator Obama’s anti-gun credentials clearly set him at odds with the majority of the court. That the court voted 5-4 is a reflection of the activism of judges appointed by Democrat Presidents.
Those Democrats, who claim to be supportive of the poor, would disarm the citizens of cities such as D.C. Where they have succeeded the crime has risen in both frequency and severity.
Restrictions on firearms ownership and carrying merely create a pool of victims for those who chose not to obey the laws.
More guns in that hands of law adiding citizens equals less crime. Guns are a tool, if you insist on restricting these tools to the lawless you reap lawlessness.
It is my fervent hope that Obama does not become President, he has repeatedly demonstrated by his actions that he is an elitist who does not trust the working people who make this country great.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:58 pm PDT
What’s very clear, is that Obama’s position to ban “assault weapons” has not changed, which means he considers my shotgun, which happens to have a stock that can have it’s length changed at the touch of a button to accomodate persons of different heights, something that should be illegal. Sure, there are important restrictions against allowing felons, mentally ill or incompetant, or underage persons from obtaining firearms, but Obama still embodys a culture of gun fear, which seeks to restrict firearms to the greatest extent possible, and that’s something 2nd amendment supporters will not find in his favor.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 am PDT
The only people who favor additional restrictions on legal firearms are those who haven’t studied the issue. One need only refer back to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when lawless mobs were running through the streets, looting anything they wish. And what are the New Orleans Police Department and various national guard units doing? Protecting citizens from the outlaws?
No. They are rounding up guns from law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless. And with the recent Supreme Court decision, holding that Washington DC’s gun laws are unconstitutional, the DC leaders are now implementing rules that are almost as restrictive as those found unconstitutional.
Further, Obama should cite some of those “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.” With all the regulations in place in Washington DC to restrict firearms, how safe is it compared with the communities in Virginia that are across the river? Would the average person; no, would Obama feel safe walking the dark streets of Washington DC past dark without being surrounded by protectors armed with the very weapons that DC residents are denied?
Sure, it is sad when a person is the victim of firearm violence (just as it is sad when someone is the victim of accidental drowning or a vehicle accident). But what is never mentioned by the media is the number of times that citizens are protected from violent crime by the possession and occasional use of defensive firearms.
If one were to judge candidates from their past actions and positions, it appears that Obama is more than willing to further infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens, rather than focusing his efforts on removing firearms from those who cannot legally possess them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 am PDT
When your rights get decided by the majority, that is when we are all in trouble. Just because 60% of a certain population does not understand what FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY mean does NOT mean that our Right to own a gun, speak out in public, or any of our other Rights should be further restricted. What it means is that these people need to be educated about what a Right truly is and how Responsibility goes alone with each and every Right that we, as American Citizens and human beings, have.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 am PDT
[…] latest is this tripe (careful with that link, it may hijack your browser) from their blog: Obama
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am PDT
2004 poll data? Perhaps a little research would have shown something more recent?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am PDT
Translation of article: EVERYTHING THE MESSIAH (I.E., OBAMA) SAYS ABOUT EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT AND IN-LINE WITH WHAT ALL AMERICANS THINK. GIVE ME A BREAK! 2004 statistics? The most recent statistics you could come up with were 2004 statistics? I am befuddled by your slavishly liberal bias. Also, which statements by McCain after the Heller ruling were “far from Shermanesque and were open to interpretation”? You don’t list any examples and thus I assume that you (like most of the media) do not know your ars from your elbow on this issue. Just for the record, and unlike Barry Obama, McCain said that he would NOT support a new so-called assault weapon ban, and would never support any laws that even come close to the unconstitutional garbage coming out of the District of Columbia. Barry Obama said in 2004 that he would support a BAN OF ALL HANDGUNS, said before the 2008 Potomac Primary that he supported the DC handgun ban, and during a debate with Hillary Clinton indicated that he was in favor of reinstituting a new assault weapon ban. IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS IN THE BATTLEGROUND STATES? THE RESOUNDING ANSWER IS NO AND YOU KNOW IT, MR. CHINNI. BTW, how much money have you donated to Obama, you liberal jerk…
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 am PDT
It’s really said that Obama and McCain are supposedly the best that this country can come up with. We have a far-left, elitist, socialist in Obama and a Moderate Democrat, fascist in McCain. Both have continually violated the Constitution of the United States. They should have a date with lethal injection instead of running for President. This Republic is lost.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm PDT
As a Jewess in the US, I say it is high time that our Congress enact legislation mandating that any NRA memberhip card is an automatic NATIONAL Concealed Carry permit! Let’s take BACK our streets!
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm PDT
The decision was 9-0 on the individual right to bear arms. You need to read the dissent opinions. All 4 of the dissenting justices agreed with the individual rights interpretation in both opinions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm PDT
Dante is writing an anti-gun hack piece for the “CSM”.
Of course he has no concern for the concept of individual
rights….he’s not thinking, he’s paying off his mortgage.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm PDT
Assault weapons are useful to the military and criminals.
Hunters rarely get off more than one shot before an animal *****, target shooting is also one shot at a time. I shoot guns, my family owns guns, and I think that zero regulation in this area translates to lots of deaths, not more “self defense.” For every extra intruder stopped, two kids will accidentally shoot themselves or their friend.
I personally think that making many kinds of guns illegal helps public safety, because ownership alone is then a crime, and since only criminals need those kinds of guns, even if they can’t be tagged on other things, their ownership of something illegal is enough to finger them.
Close the gun show loophole!
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm PDT
The second amendment is THE most important because it is the one right that ensures you can protect all your other rights… period.
I won’t even bother to address the obvious citizen-vs-citizen self defense issues, it secures your rights with our government.
People who say that you can no longer protect yourself from such a strong and well-armed government don’t get the point. If the government were to try something catastrophically tyrannical, there will be much higher consequences with 250 million guns out there in the citizen’s hands than if there were zero. Guerilla war tactics with inferior arms can disrupt large armies. It is the last ultimate deterrent.
This is probably why leftists who believe in more government control in all aspects of your life (because they know best… right?) from schooling to healthcare and retirement (cradle-to-grave government) hate the second amendment most. They want to keep the citizens unarmed and completely dependent.
The one thing that all tyrannical governments and dictators fear most: A well-armed population.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 am PDT
Everyone with a gun should have to register annually - hunters included.
No one needs a closet stacked to the gills with guns !!
No one person needs to buy AT ANY TIME, a gun that fires multiple rounds.
Please point out to me - where is the militia in my town/city?
Right - there isn’t one.
You need to read the whole of the amendment and not just the part that suits you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am PDT
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm PDT
For an example, “Machetes” would be better as a parallel instead of harmless “books” when reading this Amendment.
The trouble is that “the well educated electorate” are not generally in favor of guns being purchased without proper criminal checks, at gun shows or via mail order. We are overlooked in favor of the NRA lobby who never, never, never compromise.
One assumes that they are also unable to read to the end of the Amendment.
It just shows how easy it is to manipulate !
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm PDT
ROSIE:
Of course advocates of the Constitution consider the entire ammendment. You need to understand context. If you know the background and history of the American Revolution, you understand why this was so important to the founding fathers. Heck, they made it second on the list of the Bill of Rights!
Assuming you understand the definition of militia: “civilians acting as soldiers but not part of the regular army”. This protects the CIVILIANS from enemies domestic and abroad.
The entire spirit of these rights were on the heels of the revolution against the founding fathers own government (England). The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of the CITIZENS, this document doesn’t list details about arming an army.
A little history and context makes the interpretation of the entire second amendment obvious.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:14 am PDT
[…]The article states that
The big question for voters in key places may not be where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, but how and to what extent each wants the government to involve itself in America’s gun laws.
To me, this seems to be precisely related to where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, i.e., whether or not the candidates believe that amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the government from infringing citizens’ right to own and carry guns.[…]
July 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm PDT
This dude is saying anything and everything it takes to get elected. Like all liberal socialists, he must hide his real agenda from grass roots Americans. Meanwhile Europeans, the Press, and a dumbed down American population enjoy multiple orgasms with each and every appearance of their new messiah. We have not seen such numb, blissful multitudes gather for anyone since the 1930’s, in a vast zeppelin field in Nuremberg. When without a teleprompter, the man stammers and utters utterly incoherent statements and no one cares because no one is really listening. Its no wonder he refuses to debate his opponent in a natural setting free of a script for him to follow. This is one very scary dude, and I fear for America.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm PDT
Gun owners have a much higher rate of mortality for obvious reasons. In the long run this is a Darwinian selection. It’s only a matter of time before the gun-toting right-wing lunatics disappear.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm PDT
I think that the bill of rights clearly stated citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt in my mind on that. I don’t however believe the founding fathers could have possibly imagined the kind of weapons that exist now. They had cannons, they had muskets, these were literally “one shot, reload” no assault rifles, no machine guns, this was not a consideration in writing. As such, anyone who claims assault rifles were in mind when it was written is giving you a load of ****.
For the defense of our nation, against a threat of direct invasion… yes, they could certainly be justified, but if we are at that page, we will not be worrying about our rights we will be worrying about getting our conscripted army setup fast.
But, lets be honest here. The real issue lies at the heart of the problem: What would the founding fathers have said if they knew the potential for destruction would come in something the size of a flintlock pistol and that could be fired multiple times and reloaded before they could even get the second shot fired.
I don’t favor gun control if it means no guns, I do favor gun control if it means limiting and/or requiring permits especially if it serves no purpose other than to be STOLEN and used against the same people it was meant to DEFEND.
To me, permits (including assault rifles) should be granted as long as you do not have a violent criminal history (including drug/alcohol abuse)and have no mental instability of ANY variety. (That means, first offense your permit is revoked and you turn the weapon in or face serious charges.)
“Philadelphia gun owners who do not report missing firearms within 24 hours of losing them will face fines up to $1,900 and up to 90 days in prison upon a second offense,”
I like the sound of that. You should really think about that law. Do you think you can keep track of your guns well enough to know they are missing within 24 hours? I know I would notice. Now… if you were on vacation… should be somewhere you can turn them in for safe keeping.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:15 pm PDT
Omg – thought you guys might enjoy this – presidential candidate Jimmy Breaux talking about gun control. Funny stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR9nVxDGD78
July 28th, 2008 at 1:32 am PDT
After 9/11 we changed the way we do things in this country, no?
In contrast to the way things were before, now it is perfectly acceptable that people be held without charges, to conduct warrant less searches and suspend the people’s rights in the name of safety. Will anyone here tell me that it isn’t wrong for the government to have that power? That in the name of safety, people who’ve never met you can take away anything in the name of safety at gunpoint isn’t wrong?
So, a man shoots his lawnmower because it doesn’t start. This afternoon its reported a man shot and killed someone in a church.
Plenty of people die from accidental shootings each year, no doubt. If the argument is on that level, 2.5million times each year people defend themselves with firearms, the vast majority of instances without firing a so much as a warning shot. Gun bans, such as in Chicago, show of an increase in crime. Banning guns simply doesn’t work as far as stopping crime in this country, it just doesn’t work that way.
As far as escalation goes, I think that argument is flawed. If more people have guns, criminals have more as well. I don’t think that having a gun in my homes means I’m still as vulnerable to robbery as I’d be should I not have a gun, only now the robbers will have firepower. If I have a sign in my yard making clear to potential intruders their potential victims will be armed with firearms, I would say to you they will move down the street to the house without the sign. Heres how much of a nut I am. In this house there are five handguns of various sizes, three shotguns, more rifles that I can count on my hands and maybe my feet, two FALS and an Ak-47. Now. Thinking of the potential gain from a home invasion, does the criminal just match that firepower and shoot it out for my wallet? No.
You don’t mug a cop, you mug someone who looks like they can’t defend themselves. In this state you can carry a concealed weapon. Concealed weapons reduce crime.
The man who shoots two thieves after telling them not to move? There are people out there that don’t operate logically. If I really want to, I can go down to Home Depot and buy what I need to blow up a building. More people die in cars, you don’t ban cars. Alcohol kills thousands, we’ve seen what happens when you ban it.
But none of that matters. None of it. In the case of cars, drugs, chemicals, even guns, you never trade freedom for security. You should be able to go to the airport and get on plane with no searching or screening whatsoever. Give me liberty of give me death, right? Live free or die.
Someone kills a family member. There isn’t any evidence to convict them, but of course, they admit to their lawyer that they did it, how they did it and you manage to record it, but, because of our justice system the person that killed a member of your family will never spend a day in prison, worse, he could kill again. Should that recording be admissible in court? Putting myself in that position, I know nothing could stop me from wanting to tear that person to shreds. To be that person, emotionally, that response is nothing but right.
However. The rights of the people are so much more important than people’s emotional needs, even if it means people aren’t as safe because of it. You never trade liberty for safety. Certainly people are much safer from all manner of harm if they are confined to a work camp that provides for nutritional and medical needs, aren’t they?
You can do a lot to make society safer, right up to the point that you’re safe from your own thoughts, desires, ideas and pursuits.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm PDT
April 7th, 2009 at 11:46 am PDT
Автор, посты , конечно, интересные. Но вы не размышляли поменять дизайн?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:44 am PDT
April 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm PDT
April 18th, 2009 at 10:07 am PDT
I just read an opinion article from the Christian Science Monitor on Yahoo, “Obama Too Cool On Gun Control”.
Apparently, the person who wrote it isn’t fully informed as to Obama’s recent underhanded moves to have his cronies in Congress and the Senate slip gun control amendments
into the bills that our representatives aren’t reading (Arg!!!!)
and that’s exactly why they’re doing it that way.
If citizens had not made themselves aware of these underhanded tactics,
they would have been passed. This is exactly the kind of underhandedness that Joe Biden suggests in his book, and that Rahm Emanuel have suggested.
It is a little known fact that, during the Presidential campaign, Obama had 200 lawyers working for him to control the flow of factual information.
In fact, those attorneys sent a legal letter to the majority of radio stations, threatening to move to have their licenses to broadcast revoked if they dared to carry the NRA ad that listed Obama’s factual voting record against gun rights, and for gun control.
That information can be found at this link;
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11588
I suggest that citizens dig a little harder about what kind of backroom
deal making is going on.
Check out the NRA and any other gun rights sites for the real news.
We are losing more and more Constitutional rights every day, because
Obama has the right number of Senate seats available to him.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm PDT
Интересно, а почему так редко блог обновляете?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pm PDT
Хотя я уже и читал подобные посты, но не дает мне это покоя. Спасибо за пост.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm PDT
Хм, почему-то у меня вместо заголовка блога вопросики…
May 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm PDT
Что-то футер у вас вправо съехал (в опере при разрешении 1024х768)
May 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm PDT
Хорошо пишете. Учились где-то или просто с опытом пришло?
May 15th, 2009 at 5:26 am PDT
Понравилась статья. А будет ли продолжение ?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:19 am PDT
Очень интересно!!! Только не очень могу понять как часто обновляется ваш блог?
May 15th, 2009 at 11:04 am PDT
Огромное вам человеческое спасибо, очень актуальная заметка.