« Thoughts on the media | Main | Gun blog gun got here! »
Field & Stream interviews the candidates
Right here.
Obama:
Chuckle. His explanation of his "clinging to guns and faith" remark: "What they do expect is at the very least they can preserve those traditions that have been so important to them, like hunting, like their faith. That ends up being the focus of their attention [rather than economic issues]. "
Does he agree with Heller? No real answer: "hat I think it has done is provided some clarity that, in fact, the Second Amendment is an individual right and that law-abiding gun owners can't be prevented from going out and hunting, protecting their family on their own. That doesn't mean that, as Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court noted, it doesn't mean that we can't have some common-sense gun control legislation out there-for example, background checks, making sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or people who have mental illnesses. The important point is that I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen in America may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there's nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition."
Does he include AW bans and registration as "common-sense" gun regulation? " I think that when it comes to the assault weapons ban, the answer is yes. I think AK-47s generally are not used for hunting. AK-47s or vest-piercing bullets are generally used to hurt people. And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about. But I'll be honest with you. I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have-for example, tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. But I think that strong background checks; making sure that we're dealing with the gun-show loophole, which I think has been a problem; allowing us to trace guns that are used in crimes back to where they were purchased--those are the kinds of initiatives that I think pose no threat whatsoever to law-abiding gun owners."
McCain:
Does the 2nd Amendment confer an individual right? "Absolutely. Absolutely."
Would you support an AW ban? "No."
How about a high-cap magazine ban? "No. Because we quickly get into an academic discussion--what's high-capacity? What's a banana clip?"
What issue is most likely to cause friction between you and gun owners? " Probably [that] I favor the closing of the gun-show loophole. In other words, when it's a small transaction. I do not support restrictions on family exchanges. But I think that gun shows are marvelous, and we now have the capability for instant background checks. That person that perpetrated the tragedy at [Virginia Tech in] Blacksburg should never have had access to a weapon because of his history. But I have favored the closing of the gun-show loophole. That's probably one of them, but I'm a strong supporter of gun shows, strong supporter of the Second Amendment, strong record in that area. So that probably may be one of those things. But I'm very proud of my record."
Do you own a gun? "I do not. I have used weapons most of my adult life in the military from when I first entered the Naval Academy, being out on the rifle and pistol range. I carried a pistol in combat. Never got a chance to use it [laughs]. So I'm very familiar. But I just haven't gotten into hunting. I have a son who's a hunter."
UPDATE: a reader points out that the interview of "the candidates" was really an interview of the two major party candidates. For example, Bob Barr, a thoroughly pro-gun candidate, was omitted since he's Lib rather than Demo or GOP.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
17 Comments | Leave a comment
"I favor the closing of the gun-show loophole. In other words, when it's a small transaction. I do not support restrictions on family exchanges"
But John, what's the difference between my grandfather giving me a M1 Carbine he used in World War 2 and purchased with his pay, and me buying a similar M1 at a gun show and having to go through a background check? None, accept that you're lying or are ignorant and gun shows have 4473's you fill out.
There is no "gun show loophole", it's a lie. He admits he hasn't used a gun since basic training or the academy, admits it, and even though he knows little to nothing about firearms, he doesn't mind regulating them though.
He's just like Obama, only white.
what's he talking about here?
"I do not support restrictions on family exchanges."
well that doesn't mean they won't simply be banned anyways, it just means mcpilate can wash his hands. besides, what about exchanges between friends?
"But I think that gun shows are marvelous, and we now have the capability for instant background checks."
this doesn't say anything. i think they're marvelous, too, john. i did notice the NICS system, too, john. you get a gold star for the day.
Gosh, I can't find anything about hunting and sporting in the 2nd Amendment. Looks more like a "kick the crooks out" amendment, or as Joshpe Story stated a "take back our country" after the usurpation. And for that we need military equivalent weapons. And again, please show me the "reasonable" clause in the 2nd.
Can't do it? It ain't there? Well then isn't the statement that "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions just another lie on the part of the government, a government bent on controlling everyone's complete existence, cradle to grave.
Cold, dead hands, baby!
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
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.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America - Heller
…that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
Supreme Court of the United States of America, D.C. vs. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority (June 26, 2008)
Oath of Office – President of the United States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution
Democratic Platform - 2008
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
Republican Platform - 2008
Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities. We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.
Feel free to share, Chuck
Didn't Obama vote to ban nearly all rifle ammunition commonly used in hunting rifles calling it "armor-piercing"? And who says I can't use a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip, external magazine, collapsing stock and other "scary-looking" features (yes, it's actually in most assault weapon definitions) to hunt? A well regulated populace, being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the government to register and ban arms shall not be infringed.
McCain's sins are numerous and can fairly be said to include the 'gun-show loophole' nonsense and a really dumb association with the (now defunct) "Americans for Gun Safety" group, an astroturf scam that was really an anti-gun group. This is why McCain has the NRA rating of 'C'.
But it isn't fair to say McCain supports any ban on so-called "assault weapons". His voting record and public statements have been steadfast on this issue.
The only evidence ever pointed to (most vocally by the GOA) that McCain is for an AW ban is a single quote excerpted from an old LA Times article. But if you read the LA Times article and see the quote in context it really isn't anything to worry about after all. In fact the article as a whole is about McCain's pro-gun position. The damning McCain quote is a defensive response to a hostile press question.
Aside from the extremist anti-gun history of Obama and his 'F' rating, it makes sense to compare the people McCain and Obama have picked for V.P. I think the Biden vs Palin pick speaks volumes as to exactly what kind of president Obama would be when it comes to guns vs McCain.
I'd say the choice this election is crystal clear: vote for McCain / Palin, stop Obama / Biden.
If there is one phrase that is guaranteed to start me on a rant it's "common sense"! Any time any one mentions "common sense" as in "some common-sense gun control legislation" your mental alarms should be clanging to beat the band!
As I pointed out in a thread in the Chicago Tribune where anti-gunners were using that term alot, "common sense" is a phrase that really just describes what someone has had hammered into them so well that they don't remember where they first heard it.
Before Galileo, it was "common sense" that an iron sphere fell faster than an equal sized wooden one. It was common sense that since the sun was a perfect heavenly body it was impossible for it to have spots! And now it's "common sense" that guns only purpose is to kill people or animals!
The invention of the scientific method is a specific counter to so-called "common sense" and frequently shows there in no "sense" in the phrase, yet the anti-gunners continue to use that term over and over again! The sad thing is that it often works, because no one likes to be accused of not having "common sense"!
Never let this term go unchallenged!!!
Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, (maybe Reed), etc. and fascist Dem platform plank: So-called AW ban - YES! Any other restrictions they can get away with - YES!!
If you believe that they won't attack our firearms ownership if they take control of all three branches, then you're either disingenuous or easily fooled!
McCain and Repubs: so-called AW ban - NO!!
That alone is enough of a difference for me!
Obama's emphasis of hunting and "sporting purpose" is very telling as to his perception of what the Second Amendment protects. It allows him to claim to believe in and support the Second Amendment - but it's his version of the Second Amendment that he supports, which is in no way related to the actual history, meaning and import of the real Second Amendment itself.
McCain is no dream candidate, but he's a damn sight better than the nightmare of Obama. I'm going to hold my nose and vote McCain/Palin because a vote for anyone else is equivalent to a vote for Obama/Biden.
I'll toss out a 'common sense' approach to the problem.
Since guns in the hands of good people aren't a problem how about we simply mark all of the bad people? Put a nice little tattoo on all prohibited persons someplace it's not always visible but easily shown, stiff penalties on anyone assisting in its removal, and a requirement that all transactions involve a face to face component (so no mail order without verification that the receiver is not a prohibited person).
That would be much more effective in their stated purpose of 'keeping guns out of the hands of criminals' than anything they've ever proposed.
"We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment."
Wow, the Republicans acknowledge that the NFA is unconstitutional! That's a step in the right direction.
(yeah, right)
There you go again Brad, with the lesser of two evils argument. This is how we got the 86 ban and the NFA. McCain is still evil and shouldn't be in office either.
If you come to this site to keep up on gun issues, care about firearms rights and you vote for McCain and he signs that ban, I hope your home addresses are published somewhere so people can pay you a visit to express their displeasure.
Paul H.
It doesn't matter who I vote for since Obama is sure to win California by a wide margin. However I did just donate $200 to the NRA-ILA. The advertising that donation supports just might make some difference in one of the battleground states.
What state do you reside in? With your whiny attitude I bet your state has nothing like the awful anti-gun laws of California. Yet your defeatism would help bring Obama / Biden to power and allow them to pack the courts during a crucial era of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.
You sound just like the chicken littles who claimed that the AW ban would never sunset, and who claimed the current president Bush would lead the way to renewing that ban. Common sense proves political success comes from gaining allies and achieving incremental change, not by hunting for heretics and demanding total and instant change.
Your zealotry and veiled threats make you part of the problem and not the solution. Enjoy your bunker, because if too many people follow your example you will eventually need it.
"What state do you reside in? With your whiny attitude I bet your state has nothing like the awful anti-gun laws of California."
It's Florida.
Wow though, California? You should get the fuck out of that state. Because I don't know if you've noticed but people there do not like gun owners. In fact what gun owners are there, are like you. They're all too willing to just compromise rights away.
Since you like compromising so much (being a R.I.N.O in California), and acknowledge that Obama probably will win, I've got a fantastic compromise for you:
If guns are banned in California you can:
1. Get out of California.
2. Turn them in and reside there.
3. Live as a criminal for simply possessing your Remington WSM caliber bolt-guns (because I bet you own at least one fitting that description as they aren't a real firearm, just something that goes "pop" towards small animals once a year).
Any money you take 2. You're mentality is like that of Jew's who turned in Firearms in Germany during the 30's.
And I wasn't threating you. Look up First Amendment law. I was merely stating opinion.
You call me a extremist but if you go to even moderate gun boards on the net, you'll find that most members agree with me. Even respected ones like THR (despite it's current management troubles).
"And I wasn't threating you. Look up First Amendment law. I was merely stating opinion."
What a joke. Let's turn your statement around and see how it plays then...
Your statement -- "If you come to this site to keep up on gun issues, care about firearms rights and you vote for McCain and he signs that ban, I hope your home addresses are published somewhere so people can pay you a visit to express their displeasure."
Now let's have some fun with your statement and turn it around...
Since you live in Florida, and a third party vote or no vote might actually make a difference in Obama winning Florida's electoral votes and therefore the presidency... If you care about firearms rights and don't vote for McCain and Obama signs a new AW ban, I hope your home address is published so people can pay you a visit to express their displeasure.
You ass.
Paul H.
You snarl "no compromise" yet counsel I should retreat from California at the same time.
You living in Florida are a spoiled child with no idea what a real fight for gun rights is about or any idea how to win. You have no idea what guns I own, want to own, or have fought for. I'm fighting the good fight behind enemy lines in California while you snipe at me from safety in Florida. If people followed your advice, eventually there would be no safe state left to retreat to.
I believe in victory, ultimate victory for everyone's gun rights in every part of the nation including California. That may be a slow process but unlike your whiny defeatism our side has been slowly and steadily winning the fight. The national course is unmistakeable, despite backward eddies such as in California. Two steps forward, one step back. That's FOPA 1986. That's how real politics works instead of the palor game politics you indulge in.
The demographic reality in California is that there is an anti-gun legislative majority. Nothing I or anyone else can do will relieve that. But hope is not lost even in California, just as hope was not lost in Washington D.C.
The best hope for people living in anti-gun localities of the nation today is through court action. That means real people putting their necks on the line violating real anti-gun laws, so that those laws can be overturned because they violate the second amendment. But that result also requiers federal justices who will adjudicate fairly and uphold the second amendment.
That is why this is such a vital election. This is why Obama and the democratic weasels in the U.S. Senate must not be allowed to pack the federal court system with anti-gun liberal justices. This is why your whine about McCain is a loaded gun pointed at my future rights.
And if you had a modicum of sense you would realize that loaded gun is pointed at your rights too. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! You are the living embodiment of that.
Would you support an AW ban? "No."
That's not what he said back in 1999 in the LA Times, John. That 'straight talk express' is looking more and more crooked.
If anyone here votes for him and he signs it, they'll be partly to blame (which really we can partly blame Republicans for most gun bans anyway). That "maverick" and "across the isle" mentality can be used against us in a heart beat.