He Was For Banning Guns, Before He Became Charlton Heston Junior
By Mitch Berg
Over the past few years – perhaps because he’s been eying national office – Barack Obama has been cleaning up his act on guns.
It’s not a huge surprise; guns have been a third rail for the Dems for about a decade. The ’94 “Crime Bill”, with its draconian, capricious intrusions into the rights of the law-abiding gun owner, mobilized the long-sleeping giant of the NRA, whose membership soared through the roof. The gun owner was a very significant part of the Gingrich Revolution (and was probably what put Rod Grams over the top against Ann Wynia that year). ’94 was the year Minnesota’s Gun Owner’s Civil Rights Alliance (and its child, Concealed Carry Reform Now) hit their stride, and began the most successful bit of grassroots politics in recent Minnesota history – the ten year battle of the common, bipartisan, law-abiding citizen against the soulless bureaucrat, the snivelling elitist, and the racist pettifoggers who’d bedeviled them. It’s been one victory after another since then – and if the SCOTUS’ Heller decision breaks the right way later this month, the best may yet be to come.
Against this backdrop, of course Obama is going to make nice.
Given his past history, according to James Taranto, it’s probably good that we work our butts off to keep it that way.
Back in April, columnist Robert Novak noted that Barack Obama was performing a “dance” on the topic of gun rights:
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just the “well regulated militia” in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local “common sense” restrictions on firearms.The government of the District of Columbia is defending a gun ban before the Supreme Court, with a decision expected this month.
Now, I don’t mind if a guy changes his mind – in the right direction.
Of course, that which flips might eventully flop, when it becomes expedient.
As, for Obama, it once was:
The National Rifle Association Web site has a list of those “common sense” restrictions Obama has favored. One of them caught the eye of blogger David Hardy:
Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.…Five miles? As Hardy notes, the effect of this would be to “eliminate almost every gun store in America.”…
…The proposal Obama endorsed in 1999 would have banned gun stores within five miles, or 26,400 feet, of a school. Imagine the same maps with each of those circles 10 miles across. Gun stores would be permitted only in the most remote rural areas–and only if there is also no park within five miles.
The Defender article also reported that Obama proposed “to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”
The point, of course, is to save the flip, prevent the flop:
To be sure, these are positions Obama took as a state legislator. It is unlikely that he would stand by them today, and even unlikelier that Congress would enact them. But it does lead one to think that Obama’s instinct is to trash, rather than protect, the Constitution.
It’s all back there somewhere.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Soylent Green is Obama! It’s OBAMA!!!
June 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Good one AC.
Like many other Marxists Obama likes the il-liberal (Stalinist, Hitlarian)view that only the government can have guns.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:01 am
But Obama would be Soylent Black.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am
McCain is Soylent Old.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I certainly wouldn’t mind if Senator Obama came around to the sane sideof the gun debate either, but we have seen a lot of talk and little action. Considering where he has been in the past, I’ll have to see some more “pro-gun” action from the Senator before he convinces me he has sincerely “flipped” on this issue. *shrug*
June 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“The proposal Obama endorsed in 1999 would have banned gun stores within five miles, or 26,400 feet, of a school.”
Because, lord knows, those who would acquire a gun to commit a crime at a school couldn’t be bothered to transit 26,401 feet. Chances are they wouldn’t go to a gun store either.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Perhaps we shouldn’t trash Habeaus Corpus, Due Process, and protections against self-incrimination, as well as the requirement to be allwoed to face one’s accuser.
“That which flips might eventually flop” – You’ve endorsed violating every one of those Constitutional protections – but seem to now (conveniently) want to wrap yourself once again in the Bill of Rights..
“But it does lead one to think that Berg’s instinct is to trash, rather than protect, the Constitution.”
Yes – yes it does.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
That is, unless you now have changed your position, and oppose the military kangaroo courts – err. Tribunals – at Gitmo. Do you?
June 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
And the Constitution guarantees the rights of enemy combatants exactly where, penigma? In the section on “red herring” perhaps?
June 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
You’ve endorsed violating every one of those Constitutional protections
In your (incoherent, conveniently-flexible and too-hostile-to-be-taken-seriously) opinion. Otherwise? Untrue.
but seem to now (conveniently) want to wrap yourself once again in the Bill of Rights..
And your credentials as a constitutional lawyer are what?
Because (since you want to get all pointillistic about these things) by your own standards you are committing LEGAL MALPRACTICE! by commenting!
Oh, hey, ye of a thousand names – you never answered my question about your dishonest, inflammatory editing of my statement yesterday.
Answer it!
(Oh, silly me – I know you won’t. You’re quick with the inflammatory ad-homina (yes, yes, I know, nine fingers pointed at me, bla di bla di bla) but you run like a scared kitten when whatever passes for your “logic” inevitably gets gutted. But just in case you’d like to break with tradition and learn to discuss like a grownup rather than a Kos Kommenter – would you care to do that?)
June 12th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Peev or whatever,
The Geneva convention allows for the killing of combatants who fight while dressed as civilians. This is what we should be doing to the GITMO detainees. The question is are you or are you not in favor of the Geneva Conventions?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices in the majority.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.
BTW Mitch – nice protection of the Constitution you’ve got there- as AC says, you righties believe in protecting the 2nd amendment, and trashing the rest, while the left protects the rest, and doesn’t much care about the 2nd. Even the 10th, you’re plenty happy to pass over if you need to (e.g. FISA violation)
jpmn, you may want to read the Geneva Convention(S) – btw, there are 4, we are signatory to 3, not the 4th. The 4th deals more broadly with the treatment of civilians- and interestingly, SCOTUS had to reprimand Bush to adhere to the 3rd – that compliance wasn’t ‘quaint’ as Alberto Gonzalez termed it while WH Counsel – but, the third has what I think you want to look at for relevant sections.
In response to your questions, I am FULLY in favor of the Geneva Convention protocols, including the 4th (personally) but absolutely the 1st through 3rd – as we are honor bound to adhere by the fact that we approved and ratified them. If we term them ‘quaint’ – then we destroy our national credibility.
In short, and from memory, irregular combatants are covered by the Geneva Convention as deserving of full protection as authorized combatants. Certainly they can be attacked and killed on the field of battle. Once captured, however, they are not open to trial, except for known criminal acts/crimes against humanity. Further, once hostilities cease (as they essentially HAD in Afghanistan) they are to be released.
The Geneva Convention DOESN’T cover the ‘extra-legal’ terminology Bush invented called ‘illegal combatants.’ Bush, under international law, had two choices, first, declare them criminals, prove their crimes under the law and sentence them according to the laws of the nation in which the crimes were committed OR, declare them combatants. Instead he invented this ‘illegal combatant’ concept. It’s not part of the Geneva Convention, and Bush has stated (through his proxies) time and again that these persons fall outside the Convention’s protections, so whether I support the GC protocols or not isn’t the issue, in fact, it’s the exact opposite. I support GC, but GC is being subverted/avoided here.
Futher, the reason these guys are in GitMo, rather than on US soil, is that BushCo attempted to argue that since they aren’t on US soil, they aren’t afforded US legal protections and standards. The SCOTUS has repeatedly refuted that claim – as they did again today.
The bottom line is this, the conservatives on the court favor allowing side-stepping long-standing treaties and international precendent with which we tried and convicted German and Japanese war criminals. They favor allowing the administration to invent legal fantasy whenever the administration feels like it. They then favor sidestepping the fundamental premises of equal protection under the law, and of the due process (and 10th amendment) provisions in the Constitution (as well as subverting the intent of the 3rd Geneva Convention).
The Bush Admnistration’s conduct here is illegal, is a legal fiction, and is why they’ve REPEATEDLY lost in SCOTUS. Claiming it’s legal is ignoring the obvious law, and also ignoring the de facto refutation offered by SCOTUS of Bush’s positions. It’s NOT legal, SCOTUS has ruled it’s not, saying it is, is wrong.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
You’ve endorsed violating every one of those Constitutional protections
“In your (incoherent, conveniently-flexible and too-hostile-to-be-taken-seriously) opinion. Otherwise? Untrue. ”
Once again, Mitch makes a claim that he can’t prove. Actually Mitch, I’ve REPEATEDLY pointed out your acceptance of Bush’s violations. From FISA not having been violated (your claim) – which was found to be untrue – and represents a violation of powers and due process, to your acceptance of the violations of Habeaus Corpus, which the SCOTUS for the 3RD TIME TODAY said wasn’t acceptable, to violations of due process by the ‘domestic spying program’ which tacitly have accepted by NOT bitching about it – you’ve time and again stood by while the 5th, 6th, and 10th amendments have been violated, while the body of the Constitution (regarding Habeaus Corpus) has been violated.
So, while you claim my comments are unproven, they in fact have been proven time and again.
But hey, use your factless, ad hominem denial, THAT sure proves you’re right.
Because (since you want to get all pointillistic about these things) by your own standards you are committing LEGAL MALPRACTICE! by commenting!
Mitch, neither you, nor I, am a lawyer, get a life. BTW Mitchey, here’s some news for you, SJ is a respected lawyer in his field, but having now discussed that situation with a couple of lawyers who KNOW SJ, the consistent comment is this:
His conduct was unprofessional – he isn’t capable of being either credible or objective on political issues – and if he had conducted himself that was in court, on a matter he didn’t know – representing a client – he WOULD in fact be at risk of a malpractice claim. Your comment about him “being a laywer, as opposed to you” along with your ludicrous comment about me “not being a constitutional lawyer” typify just how little you know about the law. SJ commented that the application of law was done eroneously because it “wasn’t complying with the Constitution.” That comment is legally silly – the Consitution didn’t drive the policy, the statute passed by the legislature (yes – in accordance with the Consitution) does – and SJ’s comments indicate he didn’t do his research, either because he didn’t want to, or because he backhanded the subject. So, blow it out your ear, your legal expertise is once again on display as nothing like expertise. Please tell me again how a lawyer can pontificate on a blog without any legal risk- based on what legal opinion or degree that YOU’VE earned do you make that claim?
Oh, hey, ye of a thousand names – you never answered my question about your dishonest, inflammatory editing of my statement yesterday.
Well then, even though it wasn’t intentional, that would make two of us – wouldn’t it? But then again, I’m the one big enough to admit to it, you consistently refuse to acknowedge it… and yet again, here we are, you attacking me personally. Grow up.
“Answer it!”
Issue your demands to your kids – I’m not your’s to command – When I’ve made requests (not demands) of you, as you so often like to say – by your leave – what a complete hypocrite you so often show yourself to be.. my god. Beyond that, please stop with the ludicrous bombastic bravado. It looks childish.
(Oh, silly me – I know you won’t.
BS – you KNOW no such thing. I’ve repeatedly answered question after question from you. I suppose this goes right along with “knowing” that Miller 1894 really means Miller 1939, that the “Miller” cases, “as everyone knows” refers to 1939. Yep. You SURE know.
You’re quick with the inflammatory ad-homina (yes, yes, I know, nine fingers pointed at me, bla di bla di bla) but you run like a scared kitten when whatever passes for your “logic” inevitably gets gutted. But just in case you’d like to break with tradition and learn to discuss like a grownup rather than a Kos Kommenter – would you care to do that?)
Didn’t see your question. What question was it? And Mitch, if you ever get the class and balls to actually STOP with the pointilisitic and childish cut and paste and ignore the points you don’t want to answer crappolla, maybe your replies will get more than a skim from me. Until then, you bring being skimmed on yourself with your childish, petulant replies.
So, what was your silly question again?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
BTW Mitch, considering you implied that since I’m part of the left, that one of my ‘key tenets’ is anti-semitism, it may be a while before I apologize to you about something again.
Apparently you feel that making broad stroke brush statements of bigottry is acceptable, but hey, lest anyone do so specifically, that’s NOT ok, well except when you say it about someone (like Juan Cole).
If you want a serious discussion, start with a serious point. Are there nutjobs who MIGHT vote Democratic ticket in 2008 who are rabid Islamic radicals? Sure, but that sure as hell doesn’t make the Democratic party, or ‘the left’ accepting of anti-semitism, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean it’s a key tenet of the left. That comment was ludicrously inflamatory and unproven. You have NO claim to complain after making a comment like that, none, zero, zip, nada.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“dishonest, inflammatory editing” – btw Mitch, it was perfectly honest, in that I entirely beleive it. The point was, substitute your name for Obama, and the same claim can be made about you. You may not like it, you may find it inflamatory, but I found your comment about Obama to be dishonest and inflamatory too. Perhaps you should try walking the walk you talk about so much?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
but you run like a scared kitten when whatever passes for your “logic” inevitably gets gutted –
Yet another wrong and unproven claim by Mitch – Mitch, I post, sometimes I come back to read responses, but usually, I don’t, because the responses so completely fail the acid tests of civility and logic, including your responses (to wit the comment above).
Yet, unlike you, I have the ‘guts’ to go into the presence of the opposition and put my comments in, to try to engage in dialogue. You, contrastingly, hide behind your blog authorship, making demands, issueing threats, pompously strutting around. Get some balls, have a debate where you don’t get to make ad hominem attacks without recriminations, and discuss the subjects FOR ONCE – rather than needlessly making comments about Obama which can just as easily be reflected back on you in triplicate.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:10 am
BTW Mitch, considering you implied that since I’m part of the left, that one of my ‘key tenets’ is anti-semitism, it may be a while before I apologize to you about something again.
OK, “Penigma” – as I noted quite clearly the other day, I wrote “radical” left. You changed my statement, leaving out “radical” – which might be an honest mistake, if you weren’t yapping about it being a personal attack after your “mistake” has been pointed out.
it was perfectly honest, in that I entirely beleive it.
So in other words, words mean what you think they mean, and nothing more? I may change your display name to “Cheshire Cat”, except I bet the reference goes over your head.
You tend to “beleive” whatever you want to further whatever grievance you want to keep stoked. It’s certainly what you’re doing now. It’s dishonest, passive-aggressive and – for someone who’s always yapping about wanting a “discussion” – very countercommunicative.
It does, however, point to what I’m starting to realize is your main motivation; to keep some sort of angry bellowing going on, and to keep you at the center of it.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:11 am
sometimes I come back to read responses, but usually, I don’t,
Hah!
Finally, a funny!
You return compulsively – to the tune of hundreds of comments – until you’re called on something! Remember when you accused Scott Johnson of legal malpractice – until real lawyers told you you were full of crap?
Poof.
Scared. Kitten.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
penigma said:
“Once again, Mitch makes a claim that he can’t prove.”
It is true that Mitch cannot “prove” this, but then he really doesn’t have to when you do it almost every day, penigma.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
penigma said:
“So, what was your silly question again?”
So, you’re admitting you can’t even read? That’s pretty sad. 🙁
June 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I have the ‘guts’ to go into the presence of the opposition and put my comments in
…anonymously.
Seriously, dude – what ‘guts’ does it take when nobody knows who you are? You risk nothing. You have no personal stake in any of this. You can say any inflammatory, context-mangled bullcrap you want, and you risk zippo, because as far as everyone in this forum is concerned (with one exception), you are a phantom!
As a result, “Penigma”, you’ve taken the liberty over the past few years of saying some pretty ugly, inflammatory things about me and others (and worse still via email) – things you’d never dare say or do if people knew who you really were – snug in the knowledge that you will never be really held accountable, no matter how outrageously you act.
Guts?
Please.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mitch,
You’ve crossed over into total irrationality. You knew who I was, and you truly are gutless. Completely, totally, utterly, absolutely gutless.
If you had the class not to post with this carve and ignore style, you’d be readable, and, if you could save the completely irrational, unproven claims, you’d deserve a respnse.
And Mitch, several people know who I am – whether you know it or not, but then again, there you go again assuming you know something you don’t.
And Mitch, the reality is, you made a claim that you’d ‘be there for me’ on this blog, and then behaved REALLY churlishly in e-mail. I was , as I recall, the one who REPEATEDLY apologized for letting things get so ugly, NOT YOU, remember?
You, instead, offered up apologies with IF in them.. just like this claptrap (scared kitten) – just like the “in your twisted little mind” or whatever the last insult barage was. You truly are no better than the most venal of your commenters. So go on, live in the gutter with them, it’s what you seem to relish. Contrastingly Mitch, I actuallY DO try to engage you in serious discussion, but you ALWAYS sidestep it (well, ok, once you SAID you discuss something, I sent you an e-mail on it, and you ignored it).. so your accusations about e-mails are false, just like you claims to moral highground are false, just like your accusations that I’m somehow scared – are false. I posed under my initials – until you banned me for calling you what you’ve called me and others numerous times.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
You’ve crossed over into total irrationality. You knew who I was,
Right, but that’s not the point, not that you ever really understand mundanities like “the point”.
You can (and almost always do) run your mouth off, writing not only patent horseshit but doing it in an inflammatory, condescending, insulting way (which is bad enough, leaving out the fact that your facts are almost always wrong). You are able to do this in “public” on “opposing blogs” largely because nobody – besides me – knows who you are. If you – your *real life* persona – had to be accountable for the things you say and do, you’d probably be a lot more moderate and reasonable.
and you truly are gutless.
Which really means nothing, coming from someone who doesn’t, and never will, have the balls to use his real name or identity.
And Mitch, several people know who I am – whether you know it or not, but then again, there you go again assuming you know something you don’t.
Nobody cares if your wife and your barber know who you are. I’m talking about the audience on this blog, and either you know it and are being obtuse, or…well, we know where that goes, dont’ we?
Look – who cares? I have no interested in rehashing “he said/he said” from the past three years. It is of no importance.
I leave this comment section open for people to discuss things. I appreciate it if they stay on topic. You have grossly abused that.
June 13th, 2008 at 5:59 am
“And Mitch, several people know who I am – whether you know it or not, but then again, there you go again assuming you know something you don’t.”
His mom, a telemarketer, social worker, and the meals on wheels guy.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Back to AC’s first post. Found this and had to laugh. AC it turns out is prophetic.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66970
June 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
An interesting article on the SCOTUS ruling mention above:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2008/06/13/a_supreme_error?page=2
June 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“The National Rifle Association Web site has a list of those “common sense” restrictions Obama has favored.”
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991