Bearing arms against a flood of troubles: Obama 1; Clinton 0
The efforts of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to differentiate themselves on the issue of gun ownership has been, like so many of their efforts to differentiate themselves, a kind of off-key opera buffa. Does Obama support individual ownership or a universal ban? Does Clinton really believe law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns? Do either of them believe the right of self-defense is anything but a quaint conceit? Are Second Amendment stalwarts right to view this as a choice between one gun grabber and another?
Richard Feldman, author of Ricochet; Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, hips us to an obscure but telling difference in how the two candidates view these issues. It involves law-abiding citizens, shades into self-defense in its most elemental form and arguably reveals a great deal about how the two view the use of force — that is, the use of force against law-abiding citizens by the state. And there's a clear distinction.
I give you Vitter Amdendment No. 4615, which was voted on in the U.S. Senate at 6:13 PM on July 13, 2006. Here's the text:
To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.
The amendment, which was attached to a Homeland Security appropriations package, was approved 84-16. The bill itself was signed into law in October 2006.
If the confiscation issue seems recondite, set your wayback machine to the post-Hurricane Katrina period, when wild and largely inaccurate tales of disaster-area pillage gave way to revelations about how incompetent police chief Eddie Compass and other authorities eventually went about pacifying the Big Easy. In particular, some footage of cops manhandling Patty Konie — an elderly resident seen holding (by the barrel) a revolver that looked like something that would have blown up in Wild Bill Hickock's tiny hands — provided a shock even to those who don't normally get excited about such matters.
This was the context in which the Vitter amendment was introduced. Here is how the Democratic front-runners voted:
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Neither campaign has responded to my request for more information on their votes and decision-making processes. Will update if they do.
There's an old tension here between individual rights and the need to establish (by force) police supremacy in a chaotic and dangerous situation. That question dates back to frontier times, or at least to George Romero's The Crazies, and it's not one we can answer here. But post-Katrina weapons confiscation did provide some pretty clear choices: If you really think legally owned handguns were degrading, or in any other way influencing, the security situation in New Orleans in 2005, you've got your ideology where your common sense ought to be. And if you don't believe in the right to bear arms to protect your life and home during a days-long period when the authorities are nowhere to be seen, well, how can you say you believe in that right at all?
America is not the only source of all our troubles. It shares the blame with all the developed countries who ride roughshod and cavalier over the poor and struggling, and must awaken to this main source of tension — and terror. Therein lies the fault of the Western world: these 'successful' countries owe their wealth and dominance largely to history, and their ability to manipulate the world's economy to their own advantage through aggressive 'market forces'. The world's poor and destitute now demand their share. If this simple right of justice is not addressed and remedied, the world will know no peace. Terrorism will fester and grow into war, which will threaten the future of all people. America is a great nation with much of good to give the world. It must now awaken to its soul's longing to serve, to live in peace and justice, and, together, in harmony and co-operation, to work with all nations to remake this world.
Posted by: Mahatma KH | March 01, 2008 at 04:51 AM
Obama has actually taught constitutional law and has stated that the 2nd Amendment applys to individuals, not just militias.
Posted by: Michael Porter | March 01, 2008 at 05:56 AM
This situation is rare in comparison with the possession and use of guns by people who are either mentally disturbed or totally amoral. There should be legislation that would prevent these two categories of individuals from purchasing or having access to guns. And parents with minor children should have to keep their guns under lock and key to prevent the children from having access to them.
Posted by: Babs W. | March 01, 2008 at 06:01 AM
In light of the recent "Red Phone" campaign ads, this should help us to see who really has our best interests at heart during a national emergency. I am an Obama supporter and his position on this issue confirm some of my beliefs about him. By the way, how did John McCain vote on the Vitter Amdendment No. 4615?
Posted by: Travis Lynch | March 01, 2008 at 06:23 AM
'Flood' of troubles?
Posted by: Pedantic | March 01, 2008 at 06:57 AM
OUR CONSTITUTION IS RIGHT . THE HOLY BIBLE(LIKE THE KJV) IS RIGHT ON. THINGS ARE GOING JUST LIKE SCRIPTURE SAID THEY WOULD. READ IT FOR YOURSELF. I SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION AS OUR FOREFATHERS SAID AND MEANT. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE AS GOD SAID AND MEANT. AND THESE MEN THAT WROTE THE CONSTITUTION GOT THEIR DIRECTION FROM THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. YES,I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND USE THEM IF WE NEED TO.
IT IS THE STRUGGLE AND DEEP DESIRE MAN HAS FOR POWER OVER SOMETHING OR SOMEONE THAT HAS HIM IN TROUBLE. NO PROBLEM ---WHEN YOU FOLLOW GODS DESIGN FOR MAN TO FOLLOW AND HE STAYS WITHIN THAT DESIGN.BUT GUESS WHAT WHOSE POWER MAN IS UNDER WHEN HE DECIDES TO DEVIATE FROM THAT DESIGN AND THINKS HE KNOWS BEST. YES THERE IS A SATAN AND A HELL AND WHEN ONE DEVIATES AND DECIDES HE DOES NOT NEED GOD,THINGS FALL APART AND MAN IS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF SATAN. THEN THE WRONG USE OF GUNS COMES INTO PLAY AND MAN BLAMES THE GUN(AN INAMINATE OBJECT). IT IS THE CORRUPT MIND AND WILL OF MAN THAT USES THE OBJECT WRONG AND ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS SO IMMATURE THAT IT IS ALMOST LAUGHABLE. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE AND MATURE THINKING?
TODAY PEOPLE ARE SO SHALLOW THINKING AND THOSE WHO WANT THAT POWER WE TALKED ABOUT ABOVE ARE USING IT TO MOTIVATE OTHERS FOR THEIR BENEFIT. HOW WRONG AND EVIL IS THAT? VERY.
WAKE-UP. OUR FOREFATHERS WERE SMART MEN AND THEY DID GET DIRECTION FROM GOD(THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD,) AND SATAN IS HAVING A HAY-DAY WITH THESE LAST GENERATIONS BY LEADING THEM INTO CHAOS,AND CONFUSION,AND UNDER HIS CONTROL.
TRY AS YOU MIGHT TO DISCREDIT GOD AND OUR CONSTITUTION ------GOD IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE VICTOR. NOW---WE WILL SEE IF THIS PUBLICATION WILL PRINT THIS. I HOPE SO.
Posted by: Harriet Cragle | March 01, 2008 at 07:10 AM
REALLY----OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY. HILLARY IS ALSO DANGEROUS. BUT OBAMA MORE SO. HE IS LIKE A CAT WAITING TO SPRING ON THE UNWARY PREY. AMERICA.
Posted by: Harriet Cragle | March 01, 2008 at 07:15 AM
harriet, please, calm down, it ain't necessarily so. take a pill if you need to.....
Posted by: bodenplukt | March 01, 2008 at 08:23 PM
"Obama has actually taught constitutional law and has stated that the 2nd Amendment applys to individuals, not just militias."
Right, but he has also endorsed total prohibitions in Chicago and DC, both of which he dishonestly refers to as "gun safety" laws. While in the IL Senate, he even voted against the law that provides a limited self-defense exception to local bans.
Posted by: Xrlq | March 02, 2008 at 07:51 AM
According to his own website, Obama says he is in favor of an individual right to keep and bear arms so long as said right applies only to hunting and target shooting. Leaving aside the "citizen militia" aspect of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, what about garden variety self-defense and defense of one's own home? About that, Obama is silent. One wonders why.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. | March 02, 2008 at 07:53 AM
Obama is of the "It's an individual right, which the government can violate at will." school of thought. This is actually more worrying than somebody who denies that it's an individual right, because it demonstrates that he doesn't think the government is actually required to respect rights. He might very well be as contemptuous of other rights, too.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | March 02, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Travis,
The answer to your question about how Senator McCain voted, is that he voted "Yea" for the amendment. The other interesting thing is that every single person that voted against the amendment, is a Democrat. I can only wonder what that means!
Major Bill
Posted by: Major Bill | March 02, 2008 at 03:39 PM