In this interview in the Sun-Times, Obama says that he supports the right to bear arms, but only if that right is essentially meaningless.
My view continues to be that the constitution, I believe, does provide a right to bear arms; but that local communities, and state governments, as well as the federal government, have a right to common-sense regulations and firearm ownership [rules.]
And since his voting record on guns has pretty aptly demonstrated what he thinks “reasonable restrictions” and “common-sense regulations” are, that pretty much tells me everything that I need to know about Obama on guns. Thankfully, he rounds it out for me by tossing the “gun show loophole” and Tiarhrt Amendment out there as well.
I’ve said before we should have a much tougher background check system, one that’s much more effective and make sure there aren’t loopholes out there like the gun show loophole. [Or] The Tiahart Amendment [requiring destruction of gun-purchase records.] Here’s an example of something common-sense: The ATF [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] should be able to share info with local communities about where guns are coming from, tracing guns that are used in criminal activity. It’s been blocked consistently in Congress.
Ah, the gun show loophole. Every anti-gunner’s new favorite saw, because apparently they thing it’s something they can get “closed”, likely because a lot of people are ignorant of what it is and how it works. And then there’s the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents gun data from going to private entities, or being used to create a de facto gun registry. There is nothing in Tiahrt that prevents the BATFE from sharing crime gun data with local police departments and other law enforcement agencies. The Tiahrt Amendment was supported by BATFE, the Fraternal Order of Police, and many state and local law enforcement organizations. Do you think they would have done that if it would have interfered with their ability to do the job?
Obama’s record on guns should be troubling enough that any pro-gun liberal should think twice about voting for him – and Hillary should be right out as well. The thing about Obama is that people are inclined to give him a pass on some issues because he’s a newcomer to Washington; unfortunately his record and words do speak for themselves. I entreat any pro-gun liberals who read here to think strongly about how much you value your right to keep and bear arms, and if “defeating” the eeeeeeviiiill Republicans is really worth that.
Gun ownership as a cause for switching parties? That’s just bizarre. The difference between the parties is a great deal wider than their treatment of firearms; that would seem to be one of the narrower gaps, compared to taxation, the economy, healthcare, foreign wars, privacy…. etc.
I agree that there are many larger issues involved; but at the same time what are you going to do if your candidate doesn’t support a major issue that you believe in? I couldn’t vote for a pro-choice candidate for example, just as I couldn’t in good conscience vote for an anti-gun candidate.
Comments are closed.