Comments on: More on Obama and Guns

By: Kristina M

Kristina M — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:40:44 +0000

I'm going to guess that the sentence that concerned the NRA was: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information."

The unarticulated premise is that all gun owners either are or should be required to register their handguns. The NRA (and other advocates of the individual right to carry a hand gun) are firmly against registration of handguns. The argument is registration is the first step towards confiscation. As evidence, their argument is that in Nazi Germany, Hitler required gun registration and then later seized all guns, though this has not been historically proven: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=557183

The argument is not original, or even unique to gun rights advocates. A similar argument is made against a National ID card: http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/.

By: MV Esq.

MV Esq. — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:19:17 +0000

I really don't understand the NRA's objection to the question. Do they feel that it deters applicants? Do they feel that it's an invasion of privacy? Seems that they are overreacting a bit.

I'm a gun owner, and I wouldn't be offended by that question – I would answer it fully. A gun is just another utilitarian object, like a car, and many job applications ask for details of your car registration and driving record. No one seems to get angry about that. Employers have a right to know details about potential employees, especially given the increased violence in the workplace. An employer does not want an employee who is liable to "go postal" and take out half of their co-workers.

Also, take into account the number of credible threats already made against the president-elect's life. The existence of those threats makes the gun question extremely appropriate for his transition team.

By: S.M. Gray

S.M. Gray — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:18:23 +0000

I do not advocate the wild west, any more than I would yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Common sense dictates reasonable constrainsts against illegal firearms use and ownership i.e. no ownership by convicted felons etc.
My point is any new laws are nothing more than an impediment to lawful owners.

By: Ben K

Ben K — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:17:44 +0000

Obama only needs to replace one conservative SC justice to overturn DC v. Heller and get that gun ban he wants.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:04:59 +0000

I think this is probably a non-issue, but the Obama team should have been prepared for such a reaction, it was obvious given the fervor over Obama's intentions with regards to gun control. It is not unreasonable for a president to want to ensure that everyone around him is beyond reproach (as was evidenced by repeated attacks on his associations during the campaign), but this reaction is no surprise, given the NRA's blanket policy to seize upon anything they view as "anti-gun".

In regards to the S.M. Gray's comment, given that "by the very definition" a criminal will not conform to any law, it follows that we should have no laws, as criminals will not follow them anyhow. There are many good arguments against restrictive gun control, this one is not particularly compelling. Also, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that the people cannot be disarmed (particularly after Heller). However, I think its overreaching, to say the least, to argue that Obama will disarm the public. To be sure, he may ask for stricter gun control at some point in the future (probably not the near future), but there is no evidence that he wants to disarm the public, nor would he have the power to do so.

By: S.M. Gray

S.M. Gray — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:36:01 +0000

A criminal by the very definition of the term will not conform to any new gun laws, they are currently in an illegal state. There is no question of the framers intent to see to it that we, the people are not disarmed.