The President Elect Barack Obama will take office as the 44th President of the United States of America on January 20, 2008. The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) is bracing itself for what it believes will be much tighter gun controls to follow with Obama’s administration.
While Barack Obama makes history as the United States first ever African American to become President; Obama’s past voting position on the Second Amendment right of private citizens to bear arms has been viewed by some as stringent or adversarial. The debate of the right of citizens to bear arms dates back to when James Madison first made a proposal for such rights on June 8, 1789, to the House of Representatives. The democracy that “We the People” share in this country has been made great by the laws and declarations set down by our founding forefathers. They put forth these laws with the hope of enabling peace and ensuring continued peace and freedom for future generations. There are two sides to every pancake and the issues on both sides of gun control are well documented with both sides making strong points. In the end it is important that the freedoms that have made America a desired destination for millions of immigrants from all around the world be upheld and the rights of the individual be secured.
Congratulations to President elect Barack Obama on winning the election for the 44th President of the United States of America. President elect Obama has already met with President George W. Bush to start the transition of the new administration. Obama has also started appointing personnel to his staff. In addition, Obama has started the enormous task of putting together a financial plan to turn around a slumping economy. Yet for some citizens, the most critical issue is what will Barack do concerning the issue of gun control. The upheaval by staunch gun toting liberals is caused by their concern of Barack’s prior voting record on gun control. According to the political watch group Onthe Issues.org, when Barack Obama was asked the question “Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?” Barack’s answer was as follows “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right.” So if the state or local government constrains the exercise of individual rights than how would that be considered a right? If government oppresses individual rights than what is left of democracy? On the Issues.org further reports that when Obama was asked his opinion on registering and licensing of guns Obama stated “I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.” If criminals always did what they were suppose to do than they would not be criminals.
Onthe Issues.org claims “Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.” When Obama was asked if he favored an all out ban on handguns Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Yet OntheIssues.org reports that on a 1996 questionnaire Barack answered yes when given the question do you favor the ban of the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. When asked of the discrepancy Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." So which answer is correct Obama’s staffer’s response for him now or the staffer’s response for Obama prior? Barack was asked to further explain the seaming discrepancy of his supposed support for the 2nd
Amendment yet being o.k. with the D.C. gun ban. Obama answered “Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.” Barack then talks about another group of gun toters stating “We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.” Yet a community handgun ban only removes guns from the law abiding citizens. Therefore does Barack intend to state that in these banned communities that there are no law abiding citizens that would hope to hunt, shoot for sport or desire to protect their families?
A really good article, Lauren. Unfortunately, with topics such as this the arguments are based on interpretation of the Constitution and the context in which it was written. Times were different back then. Our founding people were trying to break free and become independent.
Sadly, we cannot go back and ask, "What did you really mean when you wrote this?" We can only speculate what they were truly going through, their mindset and what kind of debates surely raged while they crafted this document in hopes it would stand the test of time and be the true building block of this nation.
I ditto Lucas for the first sentence, Lauren. However,having just read a 22 pager on Triond the length of yours was ok for me. The subject of guns is always discussed in our home this time of year, the Cypriot hunting season, sundays and wednesdays you can see expats from around the world chewing the fat on gun law in their homelands.
Very nice article, Lauren. This is a very controversial issue that\'s been plaguing this country for many years, brought to light once again in the wake of one party carrying the administration and moving to the other party. Perhaps someday this argument will be a resolved thing of the past, once and for all.
Thanks for the info. It is really going to be an interesting term for Obama. Has America grown up? Will all the Rednecks embrace a black man in charge. I'm not sure.
Very hard changing the status quo in America. The metric system introduction was a flop, as are any other changes, that come upon this great country.
I think he will be preoccupied with Israel and Iran in his first term to worry about a few old boys with rifles.
Thank-you again Lauren. Your style is really readable.
Very good points Lauren, How will laws effect "Illegal guns"?? Thats the problem now, is that they are passed aroung under the radar. Its an obvious attempt to mislead a public that seems to take it instead of saying "Wait, Laws have not stopped the illegal yet?"
#10 by Juancav Nov 26, 2008
Must be regulated,in such way that does not reach the time of the Far West.
This is a very interesting piece, Lauren. Even though I am in Canada I think it is important to know what is going on and why with the US government because it affects us all. Gun laws definitely need to be regulated. This is a very controversial topic but is one that needs to be addressed.
You put a lot of work and thought into this piece and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention.
Thank you,
Darlene
#12 by The Quail Nov 28, 2008
Awesome article here. Well done my new young friend.
One of my favorite things about you as a writer is that you are not afraid to tackle the controversial issues. My father is probably burying his guns in the backyard to keep the government from taking his guns away. He says that a semi-automatic .22 rifle is considered an assault weapon to the government.
Sadly, we cannot go back and ask, "What did you really mean when you wrote this?" We can only speculate what they were truly going through, their mindset and what kind of debates surely raged while they crafted this document in hopes it would stand the test of time and be the true building block of this nation.