On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first-ever ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. By overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, the justices said the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense.
Within minutes of the ruling, the presidential candidates issued statements. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has typically been supportive of many gun-control efforts, said “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures … Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”
Presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a long-time supporter of the right to bear arms, said “today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision.”
McCain’s statement also included a veiled attack on his opponent: “unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is an important right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” McCain said.
In this statement, McCain was reminding his voters of a comment Obama was overheard saying in April, referring to people in small towns being “bitter” and “clinging to guns.” Obama has since apologized for that statement.
Most of the votes are for Obama,
but it seems like McCain is going to win the elections because the american government is most likely to choose a white man, “so that they won’t brake the record of only white men being presedent.”
I have faith in the American people to look past the color of a candidate’s skin.
Obama will face intense criticism because of his record on gun control, including a vote in the Illinois legislature to completely ban handguns, not to mention his vote in the US Senate supporting Senator Kennedy’s bill to ban certain calibers of ammunition, including the popular .30-30.
These are not mainstream positions. Even voters who do not own guns and who are not members of the NRA would look askance at a record like that.
Obama may be polling well in states like PA, WI, OH and others, but he’s going to have a tough time winning over hunters and sportsmen in those states.
As for the southern states, his road will be even rougher, and not because of his skin color. Guns are a way of life in the south.
It’s pretty clear that Obama had national ambitions years ago. He should have considered those ambitions when he cast his votes on gun issues.
Obama is the future, McCain represents the past and a third Bush term
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional “gun” issue. Let’s re-state the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.