The Almighty says don’t change the subject; just answer the fucking question
The Memphis Rag asked Ford and Corker questions. The paper asked them both:
Do you believe the right to bear arms extends to ownership of assault rifles?
Now, yours truly thinks the Memphis rag fudged the question and that it was about the now meaningless arbitrary legal construct known as the assault weapons ban. Assault rifles are machine guns and are already regulated and banned from new transfer to civilians since 1986. First, Corker says:
I am a strong supporter of the second amendment and do not believe we should impose any new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.
Well, that’s great. But you didn’t answer the question. Says Ford:
I believe in the Second Amendment’s constitutional guarantee to bear arms, and I believe we have enough gun laws on the books. We just need to enforce the ones we have.
And you didn’t answer the question either.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Neither answered the question, which is why neither will get my vote. I have written to both of their web-sites where it says “contact us” on another issue and neither will reply– again, which is why neither will get my vote.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Another question related to gun confiscations. Several months back, the Senate and House voted to prohibit gun confiscations by the federal gov’t from law-abiding citizens–as was done in New Orleans post-Katrina. The House voted to prohibit 322-99, if I remember correctly with 11 NOT VOTING– INCLUDING FORD. That would be another chance for Jr. to answer–which way would he have voted and why did he miss that vote?? Oh, I forgot! I suppose he was campaigning against his formidable Democratic primary opponent(s) back in Tennessee.
Since Corker wasn’t there to vote, that would give him an chance to figure out how he would have or would vote in the future. Seems I read in this blog a while back that someone quizzed Cirker on this and he said he would “have to study the issue”.
More reasons to VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE for the U.S. Senate besides these two sorry excuses to represent the interests of our State.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:22 am
No politician is going to answer that question because of the confusion among the public about what an assault weapon is.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:25 am
moved to right post – ed
October 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am
ausblog,
Think you posted that to the wrong post. Will move.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Sorry uncle
October 17th, 2006 at 11:33 am
N/p
October 17th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Sebastian: Each of them used nearly enough words to straighten out that confusion AND answer the question – if they dared give a straight answer.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Sebastian,
Then why don’t they answer intelligently and correctly “yes or no”, on whether they would or would not support the renewal of the 1994 “semi-auto weapons” ban. I have two self-defense weapons which would be included under that ban–so it’s a question I want answered. Those who will not or cannot answer with an explanation of correct terminology, if necessary, are unfit for the office.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I don’t think it’s just the public that’s confused. The candidates probably are as well.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:58 am
If the candidates are confused, then they should inform themselves. They should especially read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I think we should REQUIRE that all candidates should have to submit a legible handwritten copy of those documents prior to qualifiying as a candidate for public office (in the case of local and state–the State Constitution as well) so that we would know that they had read them at least once.
Re; the so-called “assault weapons ban”, IF a candidate is going to uphold the WORDING of the 2nd Amendment according to the basic rules of English grammar, then they would not support it. Well, maybe that’s part of the confusion.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Yeah, I hate it when politicians (and wannabe politicians) won’t just answer the question.
However, since they each said that they don’t think we need any new laws, and the guns you own are currently legal, then it can be inferred that they don’t want to make your guns (or any other currently available guns, whether they be “assault weapons” or whatever) illegal.
Definitely a cop-out on their part, but the real answer would have to have a definition incorporated into it and when you do that you tick off everyone. Some people will say that the definition doesn’t go far enough while others will say it goes too far. Those opposed to guns will say he’s being too lax on what people can buy while some of us gunnies will say that he wants to outlaw some guns.
It’s not an easy question to answer. Perhaps a good follow-up question would have been “Since you say that you don’t think we need any new gun laws, does that mean that you would vote against any bills that would add further restrictions on gun ownership?”.
Get an answer to that question in writing for use later on.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
To give a straight answer to that question would be political suicide, for either candidate.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Any reasonable definition of an “assault weapon” would be one that is full-auto; one which would be suitable for a military “assault” tactic. Those weapons have been illegal since 1934 witout an expensive an intrusive federal permit. The only “assault weapons on the streets” as it is said are being carried by militairized police.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
tgirsch,
Hmmm, “political suicide” for the empty suit establishment candidates who can’t or won’t address a basic right issue–that sounds great! All the more reason I will not “waste my vote” on either.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
“To give a straight answer to that question would be political suicide, for either candidate.”
Incorrect assumption.
When was the last time you heard anyone try it? Reagan gave some pretty straight-up answers, and he won twice, and rather handily. Here’s my fantasy answer, for all you candidates in the Uncle audience:
“Well, I actually read the Second Amendment, and then I took an Oath to uphold the entire Constitution, not just your favorite pieces of it. I also am quite aware of the thinking behind the Second Amendment– that its primary purpose is to stand as a guarantee against government tyranny. The Second Amendment refers to our citizen militia and to the security of a free state, and it does so without any qualifiers. Therefore I would be in violation of my solemn Oath to say anything other than “Yes, of course.” Anyone who doesn’t like that is free to push for another Amendment. Until then I will, as my Oath demands, strive to enforce the full Bill of Rights as it stands.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
If Jr. simply said “From my cold, dead hands”, he could take the next few weeks off and start picking out furniture.
Come to think of it, Corker may be able to do it also with the same effect.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t be so harsh on the candidates. The question, as asked, is a little confusing as to whether it refers to AWB or something else. Both said that there are enough gun laws on the books implying that they don’t support renewing AWB.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
That’s like being asked if you think the first amendment covers political speech, and responding that you’re sure existing laws including McCain-Feingold are important, they just need to be enforced. From a statistical viewpoint, locking up every individual who ever commits an act of theft for life could even be important, but most of us like that whole “protection from unreasonable punishment” section of the constitution.
Tgirsch – it’s freaking Tennesse. “Yes” might have earned the damn Republican votes. It’s not Texas or a completely free state, but it’s just as equally not Taxachusetts or New Jersey.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Lyle,
I think such an answer re: the wording of the 2nd Amendment and ALL THE REST of the Bill of Rights would be readily received by the great majority of the American electorate as a breath of fresh air. The managers and handlers of these “empty suits” evidently counsel them otherwise.
October 18th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
gattsuru:
Tgirsch – it’s freaking Tennesse. “Yes” might have earned the damn Republican votes.
A Yes answer from either candidate would likely cost them a great deal of support in Nashville and especially Memphis. Contrary to popular belief, there actually are sizeable cities in Tennessee, populated with the same sorts of “hoplophobes” that live in other cities.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
And I don’t believe the republican is doing well enough in Nashville, Memphis, or any of the other big cities to be worth losing base motivation from other groups.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
It’s an impossibly poorly-worded ambush of a question, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect either one to “answer” it as it stood.
(Do they say “yes” and then have people say “d00d assault weapons = semiautos u sux!” or do they say “no” and then have people say “d00d assault weapons = machine guns u sux!”?
I’d have preferred them to say “This question is stupid and here’s why, and here’s what I think about semi-auto and machine-gun regulations…”, but I won’t require it from a politician, especially since the vast majority of the electorate simply doesn’t give a rat’s ass about those distinctions.
It’s gun-policy wonkery, in practical terms, and politicians know that public wonkery in the wrong place is death.)
They both get complete passes from me.