<p>How can Senator Obama say he supports the Second Amendment if he wants to deny Americans the right to perhaps the most common personal defense weapon? </p>
<p>If he felt this way about handguns in 1996, why does he seem to change his mind about handguns when the DC v Heller Supreme Court case was recently announced?</p>
<p>How can he have it both ways?</p>
<p>What does he really believe about the personal right to keep and bear arms?</p>
<p>^Sure, but why would anyone want to elect you president? </p>
<p>Why not just say what you mean, and stick with it?</p>
<p>Further, the Supreme Court just ruled that banning pistols is unconstitutional. Depriving citizens of a fundamental right typically = not being electable.</p>
<p>Until the Supreme Court made their decision, no one knew for sure which way they’d go (though with the current make-up - I was pretty sure). Now that it’s at least somewhat settled law, I don’t have a problem with Obama saying he’s for upholding the law. I have mixed feelings on the whole gun issue, so I don’t really have a problem with a candidate who seems to have the same problem.</p>
<p>I see it as saying whatever it takes to get you elected. He’s apparently just another politician. </p>
<p>Obama has done this twice so far in this campaign:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Obama promised to participate in the public financing system until he saw the level of contributions to his campaign. He then backed completely off that promise saying he had to defend himself from the evil Republicans. What a joke - apparently his principles last only a little while. *I suggest his windfall political contributions be taxed in this time of scarcity.</p></li>
<li><p>Obama wants to ban handguns - until Democrats lose with the anti-gun message and the Supreme Court declares Amendment 2 to mean what 76% of the American people already know what it means - it is a personal, not state, right to self defense - even against oppressive government if necessary.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Obama as a political messiah is false. He’s just another Northern, urban, elitist liberal with some extremely questionable personal associations. </p>
<p>I can’t believe I even considered voting for him.</p>
<p>What a load of crap! Of course Obama is a politician. What else would he be? We’re about to elect him (or maybe not) to a politician’s job. My biggest concern about him is that he’s not enough of a politician. For some people, being an amateur seems to be an attractive job qualification.</p>
<p>Anyway, one doesn’t have to be much of a pro to recognize that the positions one represents as a state senator from a district that combines African-Americans in poverty and the University of Chicago are not the same positions one represents as the leader of the nation. As a resident of Philadelphia, there is nothing I would like more than to ban assault weapons and severely restrict handgun distribution. It is not even a close policy question. Hundreds of people die within a few miles of me every year, who wouldn’t die otherwise, simply because a lot of people have guns. As a lawyer and a citizen of the nation, I believe that the Supreme Court was right about this case, and I recognize that my personal position is not shared by more than a fraction of my countrymen.</p>
<p>So if I were running for President, my position would be to accept a fairly strong individual right to bear arms. That’s the only responsible position for a Presidential candidate to take. That’s the way our system works. Politicians compete to represent the people. We want them to have their own ideas, sure; we want them to lead. But we want them to respect what we believe while they are doing that. Obama’s moderating his position on gun control as his scope widens is exactly what we want candidates to do.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be nice? I think this is a perfect idea, to be fair, all windfall money should be taxed for political candidates, oil firms, banks etc. I think $84 million is more than enough for the general election, anything over that is a windfall, and it should be subject to a 50% windfall tax. Part of the money should be redistributed to McCain to catch up with Obama. </p>
<p>I don’t think Obama will reject this idea, he will probably hail it as the first true successful redistributing program. I think it will signal to his followers that he will aggressively push forward his wealth redistributing agenda.</p>
<p>Obama step up to the plate and propose this measure, this will really help the true spirit of public financing.</p>
<p>When are we going to get smart and realize that hand guns are unnecessary. I have lived in three major cities and in every city, gun violence is a problem. I understand that even with a ban there will still be guns, but some restrictions will help.</p>
<p>Now, lets talk about the second amendment in historical terms. The founding fathers included the right to have a gun so that people could form a local militia in the instance of an Indian or governmental seize. This is not going to happen in 2008. To claim that the founding fathers wanted us to have guns in today’s sense, is committing the grave historical sin of anachronism.</p>
<p>I agree that a politician can disagree with a position but still uphold it because the American people do, it’s called not being selfish! McCain should take a age from Obama’s book when it comes to the Iraq war… </p>
<p>btw parent, i dont know if ou now this about our government, but the president cant ban handguns…anywhere. Except maybe inside the whitehouse but i think we can agree that there arent to many good reasons for you to have a concealed handgun in there…</p>
<p>I agree with JHS on almost all the points he/she makes. What this action may also indicate is that Obama is a work in progress. Flexibility in a politician is fine, the question for me is, how much of the important issues that a President will come across does the guy need to learn on the job ? Who am I getting for president ? Does Obama himself even know ? </p>
<p>I recognize that no one can be fully prepared for the job of Pres of US but I worry that Obama is too much of a “blank page” at this moment, and many project into him what he says he is or what they want to see in him without supporting facts/history.</p>
<p>How either Obama or McCain feels about handguns is irrelevant. Neither of them, as president, would have power to make decisions regarding them.</p>
<p>“When are we going to get smart and realize that hand guns are unnecessary. I have lived in three major cities and in every city, gun violence is a problem. I understand that even with a ban there will still be guns, but some restrictions will help.”</p>
<p>Wow. This sounds exactly like what the liberals want to do to anyone that is rich. Redistribute the wealth to those “less fortunate” souls. lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m curious if you think you can get the rest of the world to stop manufacturing and destroy all of their guns. As long as someone in making them, someone here (the criminals) will be buying them. Are you so naive to think that wouldn’t happen?</p>
<p>** “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. **</p>
<p>As much as I dislike handguns (had one pulled on me before), I know that criminals are going to be less likely to break into a house if there is a chance that the owner will have a gun - or less likely to attempt a robbery if the victim might have a gun.</p>
<p>Therefore, isn’t the right to bear arms a deterrant to crime?</p>
<p>I am curious, has that statement/opinion been researched and how true is it ? It does not seem illogical and I hear that a lot in support of gun rights, esp. in urban areas. </p>
<p>Can an argument be made that if the criminal knows for sure the victim is going to have a gun, he/she/they will be more liable to kill or shoot first ? Surprise and incapacitate the victim first ?</p>
<p>munchkin - don’t know if it’s been researched, I was just going by logic and from some opinions I’ve heard. Granted, I don’t generally have discussions w/ robbers or other types of criminals!</p>
<p>And in my own situation, I don’t know what I would’ve done had I had access to a weapon myself when I was accosted. I’m pretty sure that if I had had a weapon, it would not have been as big as the one pulled on me (.357) and I don’t know if I would’ve even had the opportunity to pull it out. Fortunately the situation ended without gunfire - can’t say that would’ve happened if I’d had a gun to pull out also. </p>
<p>Of course, anyone who does carry a gun ought to know very well how to use it and be well-prepared to do so.</p>
<p>“I am curious, has that statement/opinion been researched and how true is it ? It does not seem illogical and I hear that a lot in support of gun rights, esp. in urban areas.”</p>
<p>A lot of criminals are pretty stupid (judging from the descriptions of crimes that I see committed) and something simple like an armed citizenry will just push them elsewhere to easier environments. One could compare New Hampshire to Massachusetts. Mass has very tough gun laws while New Hampshire does not.</p>
<p>[Massachusetts</a> Crime Statistics. Learn more information about Massachusetts safety, crime statistics and rates collected by the State Bureau of Investigation.](<a href=“Page Not Found | Fizber”>Page Not Found | Fizber)
[New</a> Hampshire Crime Statistics. Learn more information about New Hampshire safety, crime statistics and rates collected by the State Bureau of Investigation.](<a href=“Page Not Found | Fizber”>Page Not Found | Fizber)</p>
<p>There are charts broken down by violent crime, property crime, murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny and vehicle theft. The violent crime rate in MA is three times higher than in NH. Robbery is four times higher. Burglary is 60% higher. There have been many surveys over the past 20 years comparing safety by state and NH typically comes out near the top and many times at the top.</p>
<p>this is clearly going to start a riot here as i can see many of you like your guns and weaponry…but did any of you here actually read the said amendment in the constitution…i think it is very clear that, through deduction obviously, the founding fathers were not only talking about one shot rifles and ridiculously less lethal weapons but also were discussing the rights to own these while in a militia…they were talking about in times of crisis and possible war, not to own in your house and carry on the street…the permission to own guns has had an extremely detrimental effect on our society since it allows for people who have aspirations for robbery, murder, and other crimes buy guns with little problem…everyone here is too individualistic to think about the positive effect on society this prohibition would cause…rather than blowing up and yelling whenever someone wants to take something deadly, lethal, and powerful out of the hands of every member of society, both trustworthy and untrustworthy, why don’t you try to take the blinders off your eyes and think about the decrease in crime and violence in our society</p>
<p>“this is clearly going to start a riot here as i can see many of you like your guns and weaponry”</p>
<p>Well, that’s an interesting way to frame an argument. How about many of you like to avoid facts as another framing of the argument. I don’t own any guns nor do I know how to use one but I do admit that I benefit from others that do contributing to a safer state to live in. Yeah, we have wild animals in the state and they sometimes even wander into the cities.</p>
<p>“…but did any of you here actually read the said amendment in the constitution…i think it is very clear that, through deduction obviously, the founding fathers were not only talking about one shot rifles and ridiculously less lethal weapons but also were discussing the rights to own these while in a militia…they were talking about in times of crisis and possible war, not to own in your house and carry on the street…the permission to own guns has had an extremely detrimental effect on our society since it allows for people who have aspirations for robbery, murder, and other crimes buy guns with little problem…everyone here is too individualistic to think about the positive effect on society this prohibition would cause…rather than blowing up and yelling whenever someone wants to take something deadly, lethal, and powerful out of the hands of every member of society, both trustworthy and untrustworthy, why don’t you try to take the blinders off your eyes and think about the decrease in crime and violence in our society”</p>