Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Sam Stein: Before Bitter-Gate: What Obama Said Hours Earlier
huffingtonpost.com — said minutes before: We need sensible gun laws," said the Senator. "I just got back from Montana where just about everyone has guns. In that culture, fathers and sons bond over hunting. You can't take that away from rural America. But the inner city is different, and we should tighten the laws on gun purchases and close the loopholes in gun show s
preneel- 84 diggs
- digg it
- thebradmiskell, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2Political gain trumps thoughtful examination every time when you're trying to sell soap.
- melbamom, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Too bad Mayhill "whatever her name is" didn't bother to get the WHOLE story out the first time. The death of true journalism is upon us this election!
- goodnrg, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4His attitudes didn't change between events but the reporting did. He gave a nuanced, sympathetic portrayal of small towns in the Midwest that had been economically devastated for decades at the "infamous San Francisco fundraiser", but that was lost in the one "bitter" sentence, taken out of context, that he himself admits could have been worded better.
- freeth1nker, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4Too bad this wasn't reported BEFORE Penn/Indiana (unless it actually was and I missed it; Hillary taking shots of Crown was more important for the media to cover, apparently).
- julianwan, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Because women worth millions in pantsuits taking shots of crown royal just SCREAMS rural pennsylvania....
- Dimensio, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8So it is Obama's position that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights can be restricted based upon where an individual lives? Additionally, is anyone able to explain the "gun show loophole" to which he referred?
- Terr01, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show#The_.22Gun_s ...
As for "based on upon where an individual lives", we already do that when it comes to things like free speech. (Okay, so that's not a glowing endorsement, I'm just saying it's already done.) For example, in some states a shopping mall is considered a public area with certain free-speech protections, in others they are not, and the difference is whether or not mall security can kick you out based on your message.- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3So this "gun show loophole" actually has no relevance to gun shows, but instead refers to the ability of private individuals to sell firearms to other private individuals without conducting a background check, which may be done at any location. It is curious that the issue is referred to as a "gun show" loophole, as though it had any relationship with gun shows in general. It is as though those who speak of such a loophole are not being honest.
" For example, in some states a shopping mall is considered a public area with certain free-speech protections, in others they are not, and the difference is whether or not mall security can kick you out based on your message."
Then clearly there is a disparity that must be addressed. While states may be free to apply protections to tenants, such as the owners of shops within malls, the mall itself should be considered a private location free to set their own policies regarding the behaviour of individuals who enter the premesis.- Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I think the idea is that it's not *just* individual-to-individual sales, but that during the show the individuals are effectively running a temporary gun-shop, because they have a fixed location, advertising, stock, a stream of customers... But none of the regulations etc. which would normally apply to such an operation, hence "loophole".
- brjohnson789, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Shopping malls are private property, and you cannot compare what rules are in place for private property vs what laws are on the books for public property.
- Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Replace the example with a college campus and my point about regional variations still stands.
- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3So this "gun show loophole" actually has no relevance to gun shows, but instead refers to the ability of private individuals to sell firearms to other private individuals without conducting a background check, which may be done at any location. It is curious that the issue is referred to as a "gun show" loophole, as though it had any relationship with gun shows in general. It is as though those who speak of such a loophole are not being honest.
- julianwan, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I agree it's a bit loopy, but in practice, it would work. It's similar to the law that says you cannot scream "FIRE" in a movie theater. It saves lives more than it supplants freedoms. AND, Obama is not against having guns even if you live in an inner city, he's fighting strongly against illegal guns and guns in the hands of minors.
- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"I agree it's a bit loopy, but in practice, it would work. It's similar to the law that says you cannot scream "FIRE" in a movie theater. It saves lives more than it supplants freedoms. "
Please explain the analogy. To which firearms restrictions do you believe the above analogy applies?
"AND, Obama is not against having guns even if you live in an inner city, he's fighting strongly against illegal guns and guns in the hands of minors."
As Obama has, in the past, endorsed a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, it would appear that he is "against having guns" in nearly every part of the country.
- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"I agree it's a bit loopy, but in practice, it would work. It's similar to the law that says you cannot scream "FIRE" in a movie theater. It saves lives more than it supplants freedoms. "
- Terr01, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show#The_.22Gun_s ...
- RuffRidr, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6Why does Obama oppose a National Concealed carry law?
- julianwan, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Because in today's modern age, national laws hurt the country. The culture of minnesota is incompatible with the culture of east los angeles, so when the federal government creates national laws, it automatically ***** up something. This is why 'states' exist, because there should be local laws that govern over such things.
- Wiwoz, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Thank you. Subsidiarity, people. It's what's for dinner.
- Dimensio, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6So why, then, has Obama expressed support for a federal law banning the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, which would effectively usurp the will of states that have enacted such allowances?
- julianwan, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Because in today's modern age, national laws hurt the country. The culture of minnesota is incompatible with the culture of east los angeles, so when the federal government creates national laws, it automatically ***** up something. This is why 'states' exist, because there should be local laws that govern over such things.
- brjohnson789, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I just don't understand how enacting gun control laws based on where you live makes sense. If anything people living in a dangerous area should have MORE access to guns etc so they are better able to defend themselves. When you make guns illegal, the law abiding people become defenseless, but the violent criminals still remain violent, and most likely armed.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by