Joined
·
3,985 Posts
From the Left: The debate on guns
ABC’s Charlie Gibson seemed to abandon the Leftmedia script on Wednesday night at the Democrat debate in Philadelphia, when he aimed some uncharacteristically tough questions at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the subject of the Second Amendment, Gibson asked Obama whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms. Obama affirmed his belief in an individual right to bear arms, but then said that, like other rights, it is subject to government constraint.
As is typical of Democrats, Obama went on to mention the importance of firearms in the context of “tradition” and “hunting,” but not once did he say anything about the right to self-defense or the role of firearms in keeping the government accountable to the people. (See: “Revolution, American.”) This is hardly surprising, considering that Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry. When Gibson asked Obama if he still favored registration and licensing of guns, Obama dodged the question by saying that he favored “common-sense approaches,” another favorite phrase from the Democrat playbook. When Gibson mentioned that Obama’s handwriting was on a questionnaire that supported a total ban on handguns, however, Obama denied it, adding, “[W]hat we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.” Obama used Chicago as an example, where “[W]e’ve had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public-school children.” Obama failed to say how many of those children were gang members, and he conveniently left out the fact that Chicago, like DC, has had a total ban on handguns for years.
Hillary Clinton’s responses were similarly vacuous. She said that she would renew the so-called Assault Weapons Ban (or as we say in our shop, “the ban on guns with certain cosmetic features”), and that she supports “sensible regulation.” On the question of whether the DC ban was consistent with Second Amendment rights, Hillary evaded by saying she didn’t know the facts of the case. She also praised Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter for his (illegal) efforts to curb crime (by banning guns). More on that later.
Of course, Hillary is in favor of “federalism” when it comes to allowing states to have their own restrictive laws concerning guns. She said, “What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.” Blanket rules like, you know, the federal “assault weapons” ban?
Speaking of Patriots Day, both gun-grabbing candidates should keep in mind what Justice Joseph Story had to say on the matter. Story was a Supreme Court nominee of James Madison, the author of our Constitution. “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” he said in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”
ABC’s Charlie Gibson seemed to abandon the Leftmedia script on Wednesday night at the Democrat debate in Philadelphia, when he aimed some uncharacteristically tough questions at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the subject of the Second Amendment, Gibson asked Obama whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms. Obama affirmed his belief in an individual right to bear arms, but then said that, like other rights, it is subject to government constraint.
As is typical of Democrats, Obama went on to mention the importance of firearms in the context of “tradition” and “hunting,” but not once did he say anything about the right to self-defense or the role of firearms in keeping the government accountable to the people. (See: “Revolution, American.”) This is hardly surprising, considering that Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry. When Gibson asked Obama if he still favored registration and licensing of guns, Obama dodged the question by saying that he favored “common-sense approaches,” another favorite phrase from the Democrat playbook. When Gibson mentioned that Obama’s handwriting was on a questionnaire that supported a total ban on handguns, however, Obama denied it, adding, “[W]hat we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.” Obama used Chicago as an example, where “[W]e’ve had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public-school children.” Obama failed to say how many of those children were gang members, and he conveniently left out the fact that Chicago, like DC, has had a total ban on handguns for years.
Hillary Clinton’s responses were similarly vacuous. She said that she would renew the so-called Assault Weapons Ban (or as we say in our shop, “the ban on guns with certain cosmetic features”), and that she supports “sensible regulation.” On the question of whether the DC ban was consistent with Second Amendment rights, Hillary evaded by saying she didn’t know the facts of the case. She also praised Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter for his (illegal) efforts to curb crime (by banning guns). More on that later.
Of course, Hillary is in favor of “federalism” when it comes to allowing states to have their own restrictive laws concerning guns. She said, “What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.” Blanket rules like, you know, the federal “assault weapons” ban?
Speaking of Patriots Day, both gun-grabbing candidates should keep in mind what Justice Joseph Story had to say on the matter. Story was a Supreme Court nominee of James Madison, the author of our Constitution. “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” he said in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”
