| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search Term Q&A: Obama's Stance on Gun Rights |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 10/14/08 9:35:16 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question: "where does obama stand on the right to bear arms"
Answer: He does not believe in the right to bear arms. The supposed neutered "right" he purports a belief in is not, in fact, the same right as is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Rather, he believes in a government-granted privilege for wealthy and/or rural citizens to possess "politically correct" hunting guns.
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama has stated support for the right to keep and bear arms. This new found "support" is in stark contrast to his actual record both in the U.S. Senate, and as an Illinois State Senator.
In addition, his various statements demonstrate that he doesn't understand the concept that the rights of life and liberty are natural and directly connected to one's right to self-defense. As a supposed "constitutional scholar", Obama should understand that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the government's ability to infringe upon pre-existing rights. It does not "grant" anything to anyone.
Numerous statements by Obama and his campaign have attempted to tie the right to bear arms somehow to hunting. The 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. Obama has yet to demonstrate how the right to keep and bear arms has any relationship to hunting. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and use firearms for the purpose of self defense, separating the "Right of the People" from the "Militia" in the prefatory clause. To my knowledge, hunting was never a part of the argument by either the plaintiff or the defendant in that case.
Obama also does not believe that banning certain firearms would be unconstitutional, as long as certain approved models are legal. That is akin to saying that it is OK to ban certain free speech, as long as government approved free speech is still legal. He does not see a federal registration, strict limits on ownership, or mandatory training as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. These same policies applied to one's right to freedom of speech or religion would be unthinkable. The first amendment was not put in place to protect popular speech. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms is individual, and may not be infringed upon by the government regardless of the whim of the majority.
Finally, Barack Obama has stated a belief that it is OK for localities to enact strict gun control, because "what works in a big city may not work in rural America". This was precisely the logic that civil rights leaders of the past fought against. Nobody would accept a prerequisite education to vote within the city limits of Chicago. Nobody would accept a "one hundred words per month" free speech limit that only applied to city-dwellers. Why should the rights of a human being to defend himself be more or less important based solely on geography?
Obama willfully ignores his own hypocrisy on this matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
|
|
|
| < "Search Term Q&A: Keeping Records" | | "Upgrade Time and a Little Flamebait Bleg" > |
|
|
|
|
