Freudian slip?

Hmmm. That is not encouraging. Obama is not going to take away our guns because he cannot get the votes in Congress. That makes it sound like he would still like to if he could get the votes.

Also, since he is a professor of constitutional law and presumably has heard about the Heller decision, it would seem that the logical answer to the question would be that taking away guns would violate the Constitution. His answer strongly suggests to me that he does not view it that way. Perhaps he is a supporter of the Heller dissent?

Very discouraging indeed.

The fact that Obama can not openly advocate the AW ban, despite the fact it is part of his Party Platform, shows how vulnerable he is on the issue of guns. I don't understand why the McCain/Palin campaign does not hammer Obama on this issue.

Maybe he will turn to his Muslim faith for guidance.

The guy is a gun banner supreme, and everyone knows it. He has repeatedly said he would enact the AW nonsense.

According to this video on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COAMCY

Before the Heller decision, Obama said (on Feb 11,2008)

Interviewer: You support the DC handgun ban

Obama: Right

Interviewer: and you said that it's constitutional

Obama: Right

After the Supreme Court said in Heller that the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional Obama said:

"What I have been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today."

So we have proof that Obama supports government banning handguns and proof that he's lying about what he really supports.

I don't understand why the McCain/Palin campaign does not hammer Obama on this issue.

I do: the NRA will do it for McCain. There's no reason he has to do it himself yet -- when McCain/Feingold kicks in he might have to do it.

"I don't understand why the McCain/Palin campaign does not hammer Obama on this issue."

Because John McCain supports an AWB too. Just like Ronald Reagan banned machine guns (well, limited them to only ones made before black Monday).

They're both pieces of sh*t. So is Obama.

There is no candidate right now that supports us, only two candidates who want to use us for votes and then stab us in the back.

"Maybe he will turn to his Muslim faith for guidance"

So can we blame Reagan signing 18 USC 922(o) into law on Jesus?

Because John McCain supports an AWB too.

Why obviously he does! After all he only voted against the AWB when it was originally introduced and voted against renewing it. Lesser mortals might have mistaken that for evidence that he opposed the AWB, but fortunately Paul H was here to expose the TRUTH.

"John McCain is a liberal gun grabber"

http://www.gunowners.org/mcgungrab.htm

That was 15 seconds on Google, YOU didn't spend Gildas.

He's repeatedly scored low on gun rights from major organizations (as if it's a test or some crap).

Wake up. John McCain is going to hurt us too, just like Obama.

Either pick a third party candidate or don't vote. Do now throw your support behind either McCain or Obama.

Would you rather "waste" a vote or waste your freedom?

Paul H is one of the people who believe in the "first we commit suicide, then we make a big comeback" strategy. For some reason, he thinks that this is admirable.

McCain is not perfect, but he is significantly better and none of the third parties can do anything other than tip a state to either McCain or Obama.

Yes, voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. So is ensuring that a greater evil wins, so grow up. In this world, success consists of taking as much as you can when you can, not childish tantrums that lose ground consistently and intentionally.

I have to agree with Andy Freeman. We have a choice between 2 candidates. No one other than a Dem or Republican has won since the 1850's, proving that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a waste. On top of the fact that there's no 3rd party candidate this year who will garner more than 2% of the vote (if that much), the only "message" sent (that's the big argument used by advocates of voting 3rd party) is that there are X% fools who would rather vote for someone who is 100% ideologically pure with no chance of victory, than someone who is 50% or 75% correct who has a damned good chance of winning - and that they'd rather slice the throat of the guy who could win and ensure the victory of a guy who's 95% wrong on the issues, just because Mr. 50%-75% isn't pure. Sorry, but I think that's just stupid.

I made my mistake in 1992 (Bush 41 sucked, betrayed us, etc., and I'm going to punish him - that hick from Arkansas will never do anything and get tossed out in '96 - gee, that worked out soooo well, didn't it?), and I won't do it again. I hope that everyone else can learn from 1992. If Obama wins, he'll attempt to ban guns via every method except a direct ban - and he'll have 8 years to do it, by which time it'll cost thousands a year to maintain gun ownership and skills. No thanks, I won't commit suicide before I come back strong.

I find it difficult to read this sentence from Obama's Triumph des Willens nomination acceptance speech as anything but a coded call for a new AW ban:

The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

McCain is one of the few politicians who opposesed the original AWB from the start. Say what you will about his stupid acquiescence to the gun show loop hole propaganda, but he has always opposed the AWB.

Compare to Obama, who has supported banning nearly everything and Biden who AUTHORED the original AWB and the difference is like night and day.

Paul H is an Obama shill.

Obama says he can not take our weapons? That's a good one! He is a lying Chicago politican, but I repeat myself.

Did votes in Congress have any *special* effect on Clinton's Executive Orders? You know, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land."
Executive Orders resulting in: Land Grabbing arrogated to the executive branch the right to designate up to 20 rivers per year "American Heritage Rivers" giving the President increased control over state, local and tribal lands, Affirmative Action for Sexual Behavior - of course Clinton meant his own behavior, Redefining Federalism expanded the types of issues to be addressed by the federal government, included as federal domain any circumstance in which Washington could supposedly act more efficiently, Multilingual America - enuff said, Pro-Big-Labor/Anti-Worker forbidding Federal contracts with firms that hire strike replacements, the Smoking Ban, The American Heritage the sudden establishment of a 1.7 million acre national monument locking-out low-sulfur coal in Utah, The Earth Summit implementing and educating children in environmentalism and economic non-development, Ordering federal employees to implement UN Human Rights Treaties to which We/Comgress were not signatories, and allowing Foreign Control of our Troops which Spc. Michael New was court-martialed for refusing to do in Macedonia...
(here: FindArticles - Stroke of pen, law of land, totally uncoolHuman Events, Jan 12, 2001)

All these orders were arbitrary and capricious impositions of Clinton power - how can Barak resist more of that, coming from Chicago and all.

Right, I'm an Obama shill.....wow that's the funniest thing I've heard all week.

First of all I'm a registered Republican, still. Even though technically I'm independent (politically libertarian). Second, as I've cleary stated, I do not like Obama any more or less than McCain. earn to read, Republican.

I'm not saying go third party. Don;t want to? Fine. Then don'ty vote.

If McCain wins and signs more bans, you'll have only yourself and every other dumbass sell-out Republican (I say this as a libertarian) to blame

So we're keeping Obama out at all costs? You're just exchanging HIV for Cancer. Tell me how much you enjoy your lesser of two evils when he signs a AWB.

"Because John McCain supports an AWB too. Just like Ronald Reagan banned machine guns (well, limited them to only ones made before black Monday)."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Ronald Reagan did not ban machine guns. Go back to your government books and reread them. the president does NOT write or pass laws, he merely signs them into effect. Reagan signed the FOPA which, while banning machine guns, made great strides towards eliminating numerous other issues facing gun owners at the time. Legislation involves COMPROMISE, which takes place in the Congress, where they pass laws. Compromise is a key part of legislation and all parts of life, focusing on the negative part of the deal overshadows the positives. Many people are "no compromise people" and that is why they get nowhere in debates and, often times, life.

I'm voting for Sarah, and my "McCain" vote is a vote against Hussein NObama!

"while banning machine guns"

I just don't get this Republican think.

You just admitted he banned them, he signed it. Could have read it and let it die on his desk but did neither. Then you tell me that compromises are apart of life, that you are admitting - blatantly - you support a machine gun ban in favor of Mausers being imported.

Let's see you say that machine guns are okay to ban as a compramise when ATF comes to pick you up for a malfunctioning AR like poor Olofson.

Voting for alternatives candidates is a great thing and we should enthusiastically encourage people to vote for them, but ONLY during the primaries. That's what the primaries are for. Those of us who favor candidates far from what the typical voter will vote for, need to remember that a candidate too far from the center has no chance until the public can be moved over to support them, no matter how badly we wish it. Spending your vote to support the lesser of two evils is likely to have much more positive effect than sending a message that will be ignored and could be sent during the primary instead.

Paul H.

The idea that McCain will support or sign an AWB is not supported by any evidence past or present. McCain has been and continues to be an opponent of an AWB. Wheras a new AWB is part of the Democratic Party platform. To claim there is no difference between McCain vs Obama on the AWB as you do is lunacy.

Secondly, judicial support for the 2nd Amendment is at a crucial stage of development. Yes SCOTUS ruled in our favor, but only by a one vote margin. And Obama has clearly stated the judges who voted against the 2nd are exactly the kind of judges he wants to appoint to the Supreme Court.

Brad:

"McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details."

Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999

Where was that opposition yo were speaking of when he said that?

Spending your vote to support the lesser of two evils is likely to have much more positive effect than sending a message that will be ignored and could be sent during the primary instead.

They weren't listening then either.

> Then you tell me that compromises are apart of life, that you are admitting - blatantly - you support a machine gun ban in favor of Mausers being imported.

Is Paul H claiming that this was a bad trade or that one shouldn't make trades?

The notion that "trade is wrong" is curious. When I want something, I almost always have to give something up to get it. There are times that I make bad deals, but on the whole, deals make me better off than I would be if I didn't make them.

Does Paul H live on rainbow stew and free bubble-up?

I note that gun control exists in the US because the gun controllers have been extremely good at making deals. Absolutists get rolled, and Paul H thinks that that's a good idea.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Paul H is honestly pro-gun. The problem is that he's effectively anti-gun. That's why stealth anti-gun folk behave as he does.

Losing machine guns is how we saved semui-auto copies of the MG's?

I wonder if you'll apply that losig when we lose AW's to save hunting rifles.

Everyone who said it was alright to ban MG's, or that I live in a fantasy land, I hope you lose all your guns.

You'll rightfully deserve it as you said it was alright ffor me not to own modern machine guns.

Paul H.

If you would actually bother to read the L.A. Times article which is the source of the McCain quote and read that quote in context, you might see that you are making a molehill out of a mountain.

Do you really think one comment ripped out of context matters more than vote after vote after vote? The record is clear; McCain opposes the AWB and always has.

Dude, you don't understand what's going on as much as you think you do. Calm down. Have a cookie. The good guys are actually winning and the sky is not falling.

Post in haste regret at leisure

I see I garbled the old 'mountain out of a molehill' cliche and reversed the words. Oops! That will teach me to not use cliches.

I did not mean to say "molehill out of a mountain" in my previous comment.

Final comment on McCain and AWB

There are plenty of legitimate accusations against McCain and his record on guns. McCain earned his 'C' rating by the NRA.

But it is not legitimate to accuse McCain of favoring an AWB, or to claim there is no significant difference between McCain and Obama on an AWB.

Paul H hasn't answered the question.

Is he asserting that it's never good to trade or that the MG/FOPA deal was a bad trade?

Note that I'm being charitable in offering the "bad deal" option as everything that he's said suggests that he believes in the lunacy of "never deal".

Come on Paul H, you know that you really want to say that one should never make trades.

FWIW, I think that the FOPA/MG trade was somewhere between okay to mildly not-good, but that we could have done better.

Unfortunately, pro-gun folk have more crazies to corral, making them less effective. The anti-gun folk, while wrong, are better at politics - their loons aren't nearly as counter-productive.

Brad:

You have your quote and source I pulled for you. It's up to you whether or not to acknowledge the truth.

Andy:

To anwser your question:

We shouldn't be making trades in the first place. Repeal bad laws (and be sure to read them before signing them so people like that New Jersey guy don't slip things in there to make the law a mixed bag), don't institute policies that empower the ATF to put people in jail.

Had 922(o) not been in place, Olofson probably would have just registered his AR as a M-16 and been done with it. Now that you can't expand the registry, ATF goes after malfunctions like untaxed machine guns. A tax you cannot pay. ATF was empowered to make the arrests they make due to 922(o).

So firearms ownership isn't a fundamental right, but subject to government approval and can be legislated away? So it's alright (for now) for me to have a semi-auto copy of an M-16, but not a real one?

What next, will it be alright for me to have a firearm, but not one that looks like a military one?

By the way, OfArmsAndLaw.com may not be the appropriate site for you. You might want to check out:

http://www.gunguys.com/

How does giving up machine guns make semi-auto's more secure? Or giving up some semi-auto's make the rest or hunting rifles more secure?

Do you give up your wallet during a mugging so your car won't be taken? Or give up your car later on to protect that closet vault at home? If you do this yo will eventually be left with nothing.

Next time a blog post here about Olofson or some poor chap who gets caught up in some NFA scheme gets posted, I'm going to post a reminder as to why 922(o) is bad. And the emails of people who thought the ban was a good idea.

> We shouldn't be making trades in the first place.

Does Paul H apply that principle in other situations? For example, does he demand that other people give him food and lodging? Surely he doesn't think that he should give up anything for any of his other rights.

Paul H seems to think that every trade is a loss. Is that true of other areas, or just guns?

> So firearms ownership isn't a fundamental right

The Second Amendment isn't a physical law. It can be neutered through Supreme court decisions or simply repealed.

Does Paul H really think that the US govt can't ban any and all guns? If so, what stops it?

Legal gun ownership depends on effective politics.

If you lose the political battle, no one will care when they come for you.

> How does giving up machine guns make semi-auto's more secure?

Paul H seems to think that "secure" is possible. He's wrong.

Gun banners understand this. They take'll take two steps forward, one step back any time that they can get it. They make progress.

Paul H categorically refuses anything less than a complete win. As a result, he's doomed to lose, completely.