Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, February 16, 2008

Obama: To end gun violence, US must do ‘whatever it takes’

February 16, 2008

Advertisement

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., makes remarks during a rally Friday in Green Bay, Wis. Obama said Friday that the country must do whatever it takes to end gun violence following the deadly shooting at Northern Illinois University.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., makes remarks during a rally Friday in Green Bay, Wis. Obama said Friday that the country must do whatever it takes to end gun violence following the deadly shooting at Northern Illinois University.

— Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime.

He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.

Six people, including the shooter, were killed during Thursday's ambush inside a lecture hall. Authorities said the two guns used were purchased legally less then a week ago.

Comments

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago

In fact, the first amendment is subject to commonsense regulation already.

For example, it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there's no fire, illegal to incite violence with speech, illegal to con people with fraudulent speech, etc.

Ragingbear 6 years, 11 months ago

Make it so that bullets cost $20,000 a piece. That will help things alot.

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago

Obama's comment on this issue seems rather moderate to me, neither far left nor far right.

Only far right gun advocates would see it as far left, imho.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 11 months ago

Bravo Barack!

Although common sense is something lost on most gun nuts.

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago

Libel and slander are illegal as well.

bondmen 6 years, 11 months ago

Barak, you can't have it both ways brother. Since you're asking us to vote for you, you must make your positions and policies perfectly clear so we know what we're going to get. Tell us all what you mean by speaking to the specifics, like how will your proposal work in the real world. How has it worked in the real world? Has it worked or not? Talk to us in a voice we can understand man!

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 11 months ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says: Bravo Barack! Although common sense is something lost on most gun nuts.


This gets the stupid comment of the day award sfjayhawk, bravo to you too.

His comment didn't sound left or right to me, it just sounded so typical. "Whatever it takes" is not a solution, it's a soundbite and means nothing, just like his change platform.

BO=nice guy, good speaker, UNqualified to be president.

OnlyTheOne 6 years, 11 months ago

Let's see if I get this. We need to get rid of guns People have the right to have guns Let's stop illegal guns and require licenses I quote from the article, "Authorities said the two guns used were purchased legally less then a week ago."

It ain't the guns that are messed up - IT'S PEOPLE! Whoa, flashback to Soylent Green there.

kansasredlegs 6 years, 11 months ago

Hell, we don't need Obama in Washington. Obama for Lawrence City Commission!

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 11 months ago

It also sounds as if the guy bought the guns from a gun shop and I assume had to undergo a background check. He was under drugs, it seems, for psychiatric problems....I wonder why that didn't show up in his background.

Weren't they supposed to fix that after VTech?

Moderateguy 6 years, 11 months ago

Actually, the lack of common sense seems most prolific on the "ban the guns" side. As if passing more laws is somehow going to make the criminals suddenly obey and "end gun violence." Try passing that California bullet identification law through your common sense filter, and tell me exactly how that could work. Our government can't even track multiple uses of a single social security number. Now they are going to magically track the millions of guns / bullets manufactured each year? Not to mention the people who load their own , or all the weapons made before the law. It's feel good legislation and nothing more. Do you want to make a drastic reduction in gun violence? Enforce our existing laws, and keep the violent criminals behind bars. As far as the crazed shooter in the college classroom, tracking the bullet would have made no difference.

jonas 6 years, 11 months ago

""Whatever it takes" is not a solution, it's a soundbite and means nothing, just like his change platform."

That could be because there are no real solutions to total elimination of gun violence, but he has to make it sound like there is, to feed the populace's desire to continually delude itself.

Sigmund 6 years, 11 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says: "Obama's comment on this issue seems rather moderate to me, neither far left nor far right."

Doing "whatever it takes" to end gun violence, presumingly including confiscation of private guns, hardly sounds moderate. According to some believing that the Constitution guarantees the "individual's right to bear arms" is a far right position.

When the California law, if a President Obama gets it enacted nationwide, fails like all the other laws to keep criminals and the clinically insane from killing people with guns, then WWOD? (What Would Obama Do?)

By acknowledging that both sides of the debate have valid points, Barack gets to have it both ways. The problem is no one knows what his real position is. Both sides of the debate can claim that he has endorsed their position. If he can keep from being pinned down to commitments, he will continue to be successful in seducing his way into the most powerful position in the world.

With a press that swoons when he speaks and Chris Matthews feeling a "thrill running up his leg" every time he opens his mouth, it seem very unlikely Barack will be pressed into specifics on this or any other issues.

JohnBrown 6 years, 11 months ago

Both sides do have good points. I want to feel safe, and if there are crazy people (or terrorists) running around the country with guns I want it controlled.

On the other hand, how far does the "right to bear arms" go? Is is okay to have a nuke? How about a B-52 with bombs? What about sidewinder missles? Or, claymore mines? How about a 3000 round/min mini gun?

I mean, there does need to be a line. What is it?

notajayhawk 6 years, 11 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

"I think there is an individual right to freedom of speech and expression, but it's subject to commonsense regulation"

It's gonna' get real quiet around these parts .... :)

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 11 months ago

Obama is going to "eradicate gun violence" and "change" Washington.

Flash!! NO he Isn't!!!

And those of you who vote for him who believe this tripe are kidding yourselves.

Vote for the man because he has good, concrete ideas, but don't vote for a freaking soundbite, folks!

ASBESTOS 6 years, 11 months ago

"Whatever it takes?"

WIll Obama allow those that have a conceal carry permit to carry on campus to protect those that choose not to defend themselves?

Well, then, he is "not" going to do whatever it takes then, is he now.

Biased and left bent.

Godfather94 6 years, 11 months ago

In reading this article, I have realized that Obama has not thought about the criminals point of view. The criminals do not care what laws are written. They are always going to obtain guns, and they will always use them. For all sane and law biding citizens to bear arms and have the right to conceal and carry, I believe that most people would need training on when to use a gun. The Right to Privacy Act is why gun dealers can't do a complete background check on people with mental problems. This is one area (purchase a gun) the law would have to be changed. There is one way (IMO) that would slow down these gun toten criminals. If they new that every law biding citizen had the right to carry a gun, this might just make them think twice before committing a crime. Of course, if every law biding citizen was carrying a gun, this has its problems. For instance, take road rage for example. The people might obey laws, but will they want to bring out there guns?What about someone driving to slow? Or following to close? What about neighbors playing there music to loud? Alot of problems could arise from everbody carrying a gun. I sometime think that everybody wouldn't. As for the citizens paying for the expenses, can you really put a price tag on you and your families life? I read everybody's comments, and I found it to be some good reading material. I pretty much agreed on the majority.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 11 months ago

kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says:

It also sounds as if the guy bought the guns from a gun shop and I assume had to undergo a background check. He was under drugs, it seems, for psychiatric problems:.I wonder why that didn't show up in his background.

Weren't they supposed to fix that after VTech?


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's still only precludes people who were found mentally ill by a court or ordered to treatment involuntarily. That is, if your family physician puts you on an antidepressant when you're bummed out that your wife left you, I'm pretty sure that will not be part of the system. I haven't been able to find anything that says what meds he was on or under what circumstances he had been placed on them.

Sigmund 6 years, 11 months ago

JohnBrown (Anonymous) says: "I mean, there does need to be a line. What is it?"

Anything that makes this illegal is over the line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kly-fVUi1I

beatrice 6 years, 11 months ago

madmike, you would vote for a person based on a single issue? Little short sighted, don't ya think? Besides, I somehow doubt you would have been voting for the Democrat in the first place.

Would everyone here have preferred a candidate who just shrugged his shoulders and said "Stuff happens. Nottin we can do bout it."

"Whatever it takes", while still allowing guns to be owned by citizens, should require the same steps taken by conceal and carry owners to be required of all gun owners. Training and greater background checks, I believe, would help a lot. This should also make the pro-gun types happy because everyone would then be qualified to conceal and carry. Why wouldn't this compromise work? I think it would be a win for both sides.

Sigmund 6 years, 11 months ago

beatrice, your "compromise" is greater restrictions and costs on all gun owners? How very generous and opened minded of you!

And just where is your evidence that the current restrictions have made people safer or that your additional restrictions and costs would solve anything, or that they would have prevented a single criminal or clinically insane person from obtaining an illegal gun and committing acts of violence?

Restrictions on firearms predominantly only restrict those law abiding citizens willing to follow the laws, the ones that wish to defend themselves from the criminally violent, and very rarely the criminally violent themselves.

Sigmund 6 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "Would everyone here have preferred a candidate who just shrugged his shoulders and said "Stuff happens. Nottin we can do bout it." "

If that is the cold hard truth, then yes that is exactly what I prefer. That is much better than false hope which seems to the party piece of a campaign with grand visions, but no specific plan to back it up. On the other hand If has some new idea that hasn't been tried and failed over and over again, then I would very much like to hear some details. Why is it so hard for politicians to tell us they don't know how to solve problems that confounded many previous generations? A little more honesty and a little less false hope, please.

beatrice 6 years, 11 months ago

sig, so ou can prove that current restrictions on guns don't work and haven't saved lives, correct?

You are right when you observe that the gun owners themselves would need to pay for their own training, just as the conceal and carry folks do now, and just as I must pay to get an auto license, have my vehicle inspected, have it registered, prove I am not blind and am competent behind the wheel, etc... I could choose to walk and take public transportation, but I choose not to, so there is an expense to make sure I am not a hazard to society at large. Just because something will bear an expense to the user doesn't mean we should abandon it if it has the potential for greater good.

Perhaps in the name of safety, your heroes at the NRA would dip into their lobbyists' treasure chest and cover the costs.

I also know that I am not quite up on my American gun history as I could be -- not my favorite subject -- but when exactly was it a requirement for gun owners to go through a training course in order to own a gun? When did this idea fail to protect Americans and fail to lower the rate of gun deaths over and over again? Please do explain.

The cold, hard truth is that to just allow anyone free access to guns is foolhardy. We don't allow guns to be sold to the blind or to children for a reason. A little common sense on this issue is required. Just giving up and not doing anything can no longer be acceptable. At least not for many of us.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says:

"Perhaps in the name of safety, your heroes at the NRA would dip into their lobbyists' treasure chest and cover the costs."

Did your automobile manufacturer pay for your driver's license? Or safe driving school?

beatrice 6 years, 11 months ago

Nick, I'm typing, not speaking, so I can't actually "shut up." And if blind people can buy guns to "protect" us, then that only goes to show how stupid some of our gun laws really are.

pisa, nope, paid for it myself without whining about it.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 11 months ago

Classic kansas hicks - always fall back on ' more guns and more jeasus will solve all of our problems!' Oh I forgot, we need more coal fired power plants, less teenage sex, and Huckabee in office as well.

Sigmund 6 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "sig, so ou can prove that current restrictions on guns don't work and haven't saved lives, correct?"

If they had worked would we be having this discussion?

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "Just because something will bear an expense to the user doesn't mean we should abandon it if it has the potential for greater good."

How does imposing new fees on the law abiding citizens wishing to own guns to protect themselves from the criminal and clinically insane who obtain guns illegally and commit violent acts? But if your into government programs for the greater good perhaps we can use your taxes to pay for our classes.

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "Perhaps in the name of safety, your heroes at the NRA would dip into their lobbyists' treasure chest and cover the costs."

Anyones money except yours correct? FYI, don't belong to the NRA.

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "I also know that I am not quite up on my American gun history as I could be - not my favorite subject - but when exactly was it a requirement for gun owners to go through a training course in order to own a gun? When did this idea fail to protect Americans and fail to lower the rate of gun deaths over and over again? Please do explain."

Never. It is such a stupid and impractical idea that no one would take it seriously. We aren't talking about accidental shootings, we are talking about the criminal and clinically insane obtaining illegally obtaining guns and committing violent acts. If your "suggestion" is that criminals and the clinically insane be given gun safety courses, well I will have to give that more thought although it seems quite absurd on first blush.

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "The cold, hard truth is that to just allow anyone free access to guns is foolhardy. We don't allow guns to be sold to the blind or to children for a reason. A little common sense on this issue is required. Just giving up and not doing anything can no longer be acceptable. At least not for many of us."

Guns are not free, not everyone can obtain them legally, although as I have repeatedly stressed criminals and the clinically insane often get them illegally and for your education, children cannot legally obtain a gun."

As for common sense, your have none. There approximately 20,000 Federal, State, and local gun laws already. Let's just enforce our current laws first. Restrictions on firearms predominantly only restrict those law abiding citizens willing to follow the laws, the ones that wish to defend themselves from the criminally violent and criminally violent who will break the any new laws as easily as they do the current ones.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.