Part 2: Obama and guns

Did you come in directly to this article? It's part of a series. Make sure to read Introduction, Part 1: Obama and the death penalty, Part 3: Obama and FISA, and Conclusion.

"Obama supports supreme court reversal of gun ban---Candidate's stance at odds with former position," asserted this guardian.co.uk article.

Let's check that out.

According to ontheissues.org, here are ten quotes from Obama about guns (I've rearranged them in chronological order):

• Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
• Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
• Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
• Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
• Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
• Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)    
• FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)    

This is a slightly murkier issue, and it involves that pesky questionnaire that Obama disclaims.

There is this:

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. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

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."

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

But he did also say this:

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. 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. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Obama discusses guns and gun control a half a dozen times in The Audacity of Hope (2006). He writes in the book the same thing as what I read in the Politico quote above, in his 2000 bill in Illinois to limit handgun purchases to one per month, and, I believe, the same thing is behind his point that he supports the Supreme Court overturning the DC gun ban.

The sloppy Guardian article claimed, "He had previously supported the Washington ban, the strictest in the US."

That's news to me, and I think it would be news to Obama, too. Despite deep digging, I can't find anything to back up that assertion. In short, I don't find, and did not personally hear or see any time that Obama backed the DC gun ban specifically. I can't imagine a constitutional lawyer doing so.

What did I find?

Some "fence-like" commentary on the DC handgun ban that is understandably confusing, a little pushback by pleading lack of knowledge of the specific law, and quotes from his Website and books that match what he said to Politico in February.

What did I think?

I think he sounds exactly like a constitutional lawyer who considers things from multiple angles in a complex way, and expresses his point of view philosophically and...like a lawyer. I appreciate it but as my husband says, "This is his problem. Most people don't. They want to know his exact position on an issue, clearly stated. They didn't want to hear that he didn't know how the DC ban law read or that he supported the Second Amendment and gun control. That opens up his statements to too much interpretation: people for the ban hear him saying he's against it, and people opposing the ban hear him saying he's in favor of it but trying to disguise that with rhetoric about the traditions of people and the Second Amendment."

I replied, "But I think Obama thinks he is doing that. I think in his mind he probably believes he has clearly stated that he supports gun control and reasonable limits for safety, but he also stops short of bans due to supporting the Second Amendment."

My husband said, "Then that's probably what he should have said, instead of the complicated narrative you hear and see everywhere."

True. That complicated narrative apparently lead the Guardian reporter to conclude---somehow that eludes my comprehension---that Obama supported the DC handgun ban.

My husband and I agree that as much as we love how Obama thinks and talks, perhaps he needs to shorten, simplify and clarify his message sometimes.

I love the Politico quote above. It Baracks my world. But then, I probably sound fence-like and waffly a lot too, arguing both sides as I tend to do.

I don't think Barack has actually flip flopped on this issue. I think he has changed how he communicates his stance. That has lead people to think he's changed his position, when he's actually stating it more simply, and hopefully more clearly.

Make sure to read Introduction, Part 1: Obama and the death penalty,  Part 3: Obama and FISA, and Conclusion.

By Julie Pippert.

Comments

[cynematic]

You know I've said elsewhere that Obama is a master of the political-literary long-form, i.e., the essay/speech and book.

But he needs to boil his nuanced positions down into haiku. Spare, highly focused, concentrated meaning. This too is a form of message control.

[dr mac]

Golly, you don't know when its raining or somebody is pissing on your back.

[Lawyer Mama]

Excellent points, Julie. I can speak from experience when I say that sometimes it is VERY difficult to make yourself stop thinking like a lawyer. It's almost as if once we're trained to parse statutes and case law in a certain way, we can't stop. That being said, I think in time he'll learn to step back and look at the big picture instead of doing what comes naturally - parsing the details.

[Michael Pelletier]

If you "support the Second Amendment," then you can't support "gun control" if you're the slightest bit intellectually honest.

The Second Amendment has that pesky word "infringed" in it, as in "shall not be infringed." That is the most powerful and direct declaration and defense of a right anywhere in the founding documents. It places firearms freedom of law-abiding persons firmly off-limits to government intervention.

Obama talks about "illegal handguns" and "taking illegal handguns off the streets." But that is almost a nonsensical concept. Can you imagine someone talking about an "illegal Ford Focus" or an "illegal screwdriver?" Or about "getting illegal cars off the streets?"

What makes a gun - an arrangement of metal and plastic parts - "illegal?" Nothing more than the votes of a legislature and the signature of a governor or president. What does that have to do with violent crime?

A gun is just a tool, which can be used for good or for ill. Political leaders who focus on the TOOL instead of the CRIMINAL are fools - what about getting VIOLENT CRIMINALS off the street and leaving the rest of us alone?