I forgot the gun thing...ironic considering the title. Eh, we love our guns here. As much as they suck I'm over that as an issue, nothing seems to work anyway.
Sigh.
...and maybe this is a difference between me and many other Democrats...
...but I'm with him on the gun thing. I've lived in dangerous places in the past; if I hadn't been single when I lived there, if I'd had a wife and children, you're damn right I'd want to have something to defend them with. An individual right to protect him/herself with a firearm, within reasonable regulations, is a good interpretation of the Second Amendment, in my opinion.
I've always been of the camp to say, if I have to legally license my dog (who is a sweetie and not dangerous in the least), you should legally have o register your gun (or guns)... simple as that.
Of course the NRA will posit the argument that a registry would provide a list wherein the government could come and take your gun, but with the 2nd Amendment protection in place, that really is a fallacious argument.
I heard someone on NPR here in DC actually make the argument that the Heller decision, having established that there is an individual right, will actually make it more difficult for groups like the NRA to argue against registration.... because now the government can't legally take away your gun.
I'm all for 100% registration. To be honest, I'm all for laws requiring trigger locks. But I think the individual right in and of itself is good, and SCOTUS was right to uphold it.
If gun ownership is an individual right then government must be very circumspect in regulating it. That is Scalia's argument in his first paragraph. Scalia's opinion gives the NRA very powerful ammunition against gun registration, arguing otherwise is absurd.
I spent a while living in Kodiak, Alaska. In fact we had those huge bears very close to where we lived. If you were going fishing or berry picking, my advice is to take a cannon, especially when the mother bears have cubs.
Federal laws need to reflect the realities of all the states, not just the cities, and that includes Alaska.
I'm OK with guns.
Yes, Obama is a huge flip-flopper on guns. After all, he should've vowed to appeal the Supreme Court higher, to the Super-Duper Supreme Court!
Remember, candidates don't just react to a Supreme Court ruling clearly delineating an individual liberty, they REVERSE it!! They go after it head-on!! It's not like gun rights are a sensitive issue that Democrats nationally have stayed away from. (Hell, it's not like Hillary didn't praise guns and gun ownership in Pennsylvania!) No way, Obama should've started running on an anti-gun platform!
This is how this fake flip-flop meme has been created. Through terrible reporting by a media desperate to have a paint-by-numbers narrative this election.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what the Republicans have done. They reversed the Supreme Court by packing it with conservatives.
I don't think asking that a Democratic president commit to fixing that, rather than acquiesce to it, is unreasonable.
He has to become President first.
Yes, "I'll pack the court with judges who will reverse this decision!" is a winning campaign pledge.
There are a ton of Democrats out there who agree with the decision. Unless you're Carolyn McCarthy, no one's going to be campaigning on gun control these days. For all the b.s. talk about "elitism," it's time others realize that not everyone sees it their way on guns.
Mojo for writing your piece.
Obama is in the position of having taken many different sides of many issues including, but no limited to:
"Faith-based" initiatives. Universal Health Care. Tax Cuts/Tax Increases Balanced Budgets. Withdrawing from Iraq. Abortion. Black Liberation Theology.
Fortunately for him and for those he chooses to reward, he managed to win a big nomination anyway. Good for him and them.
Provided he wins the election, and it would take a heroic effort on his part to lose it, he will do whatever he feels like doing, as his political past indicates. When his campaign embraces the label "Pragmatic Progressive", we'll know what this is really all about.
You make a decent, if Machiavellian, case for Obama. I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your FISA argument. "The Fourth Amendment is too hard to explain to most Americans"??? And that is a reason to support weakening it??? There is no reason to believe Obama plans to change the bill when he's in office. NONE. You intimate that he will, as his campaign would like you to believe. There is no evidence for this.
I thought Obama wanted to change politics. That's what he claims his campaign is about. If it's worth fucking fighting for, then fucking fight for it. In this case, he's either a tool or a wuss. Perhaps he can put out an ad clarifying this important issue. I'll donate for that.
Enjoy your weekend.
Look, I was speaking from personal experience with the FISA thing. I have yet to convince one person I know who wasn't already against it that this is an egregious offense against the constitution, they just don't get it. Perhaps I know more stupid people than average...I have no idea, but the lack of understanding I've encountered is astounding.
So Machiavellian my thinking may be, but I'm beyond caring at this point. 5 Months to go and I just want him to win, I'll have the next 4-8 years to kvetch and be disappointed :)
Nonsense.
