Save Us From Inspiring Men

More and more I hear from people promoting Obama that he inspires them. That is why they support him – they are inspired. Honestly I would like to be inspired. I would actually like to like Obama. He is a powerful speaker. But I want to be inspired to do good things. And there are things in Obama’s record that worry me.

I think we tend to think of inspiring people as forces for good. That is what we want to believe. If a person moves us to action we want to believe that we are as moved by their ideals as by their words. We hear a speech like Dr King’s "I have a dream" speech and it moves us in a positive way. And yet words can inspire in ways that are anything but good. Hitler was inspiring. Mao was inspiring. Castro is still inspiring. Would we elect any of them president? I sure hope not.

Now I am not saying that Obama is evil and I certainly would not compare him to Hitler or Mao or Castro. But there is the matter of his support for legal abortion. And his strong opposition to the Second Amendment as I understand its meaning. Here is a man who quite clearly wants to protect the guilty and punish the innocent.

Abortion is simple a matter of defining certain inconvenient people as "not human" and killing them. Is that any different from the lynching of black men in the days of Jim Crow or the murder of Jews in Germany? If a man can define one group of people as not human why not another? Would you vote for a person who said "well I don’t believe that gassing Jews is right but I think we should leave that decision up to each individual?" I hope not. But you’d vote for someone who said the same thing replacing "gassing Jews" with "having an abortion?" And sleep at night knowing they were going to control atom weapons?

The right to bare arms is much about the right of good and innocent people to protect themselves from evil people who would do them harm. How can someone say they care about the weak and defenseless while working tirelessly to keep them weak and defenseless? The Supreme Court is going to decide if the gun laws in Washington DC are Constitutional or not. I believe both of the main Democratic candidates have said that the Supreme Court should let those laws stand. Now perhaps they believe those laws are good for people. If so they are far too stupid to be president. I’m not sure they are that dumb. And if they are not why would they support those laws? It makes you wonder.

Can I trust someone who supports people who would kill the innocent and disarm people who would protect the innocent? Can I really? I don’t think so no matter how inspired a speaker they are.

5 Responses to “Save Us From Inspiring Men”

  1. Matt says:

    But there is the matter of his support for legal abortion.

    This issue aggravates me, for myriad reasons, including:
    – Most every Democrats is pro-choice
    – Eight years of a conservative Republican Administration, and much of that time with the Republicans controlling Congress, and with Bush appointing a few cronies to the SCOTUS… And we still have abortion.

    In that case, how is Obama (or any pro-choice candidate) really any worse than, say, Bush on abortion? If anything, the fact that Bush believes that abortion is murdering babies and yet does nothing is even more disturbing.

    Heck, find any candidate who’s truly against it. Romney was for abortion when he ran for governor. Rudy, much like Romney, has changed his views a bit over time, but has also supported abortion. That leaves… Huckabee?

    Abortion is simple a matter of defining certain inconvenient people as “not human” and killing them. Is that any different from the lynching of black men in the days of Jim Crow or the murder of Jews in Germany?

    Yes, yes it is. There’s gray area. Thirty seconds after conception, is it a baby? Some would argue it is, but to others, it’s pretty clear that it’s nothing but sperm floating around inside a woman. That’s pretty ambiguous. Lynching black people and gassing Jews is a far cry from disputing when life begins.

    How can someone say they care about the weak and defenseless while working tirelessly to keep them weak and defenseless?

    I have to stop here and mention that I find this a bizarre assortment of issues. I’m not referring to you specifically, but to the common grouping of these issues. We talk about preserving the lives of babies, and how sacred their life is. But then their other big issue is that they want to make sure no one impinges on their right to blow some guy’s brains out if he wrongs them.

    And if they are not [dumb] why would they support those laws? It makes you wonder.

    I’m pretty sure it has something to do with trying to curb the number of people being shot. I totally understand the argument that a blanket ban on gun ownership would result in only outlaws having guns. But I even more emphatically reject the notion that we’d be safer and more civilized if every single American walked around packing heat.

    One site presents the following statistics:

    “Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.”

    For every person that defended themselves, there were another 35 homicides committed with guns.

    I’m also not sure where you’re getting your information. Obama hasn’t talked a lot about gun issues. What I’ve seen cited a few times is some random survey he filled out years ago where he checked “Yes” in support of gun control, or something to that effect, with no explanation at all. If the issue I thought was most important in America was the right of me to keep a stash of assault rifles, I admit Obama wouldn’t be my candidate, but I think the characterization of him as being totally anti-gun is inaccurate.

    I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I’m a believe[r] in homeowners having… firearms to protect their home and their family. [But i]t’s hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic [handgun].

    (I’ve edited the quotes, as denoted, partially to trim them for size, and partially because they contained numerous distracting typos.)

    Talking about the issue in light of partisan struggles, he adds:

    The problem that we’ve had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use those firearms safely, secure them properly and I think would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws. The NRA’s attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners… I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners into thinking that Democrats are going to take away their rights… [But] we are committed to maintaining the rights of lawful gun owners, but that doesn’t contradict the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or put limits on the accessibility of semi-automatic weapons…

    Both quotes come from this Radio Iowa blog.

    Make sure you’re prioritizing your issues. I don’t agree with Obama on every single issue. He supports civil unions, but opposes gay marriage. I’m not firmly convinced that his statements about the economy are as detailed as they can be. But, out of the sea of candidates, he’s the one that I think is wrong the least often. Your values might be different, so you might draw a different conclusion about who’s the “least bad.” I also don’t know how you prioritize your issues, but I’m not entirely convinced that you think fighting attempts to prevent mentally unstable people with violent pasts from buying high-capacity semiautomatic weapons is really a pivotal issue right now in America, either.

    Edit: Due to links, my comment got stuck in moderation. As admin, I’ve gone in and approved it myself.

  2. Matt says:

    Also:

    More and more I hear from people promoting Obama that he inspires them. That is why they support him – they are inspired.

    I don’t support him because he’s inspiring, and I think you’re misunderstanding anyone who says they’re inspired by him. I support him–and campaigned for him–because I think he’s the most qualified, and right on the most issues.

    The fact that he inspires me and that he’s a great speaker are on my list, sure. But they’re about #500 and #900, respectively, on the list of reasons I voted for him.

  3. Mr. T says:

    So I am basing my opinion of his stand on guns based on votes he has made. When he was in the IL legislature a bill came up to allow people to use guns in their homes for self-protection (SB 2165) and Obama voted against it. It later passed with enough votes (though not Obama’s) to overcome a veto.

    You can see a list of some of his US Senate gun related votes at http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm with citations.

    The issue of preventing mentally unstable people from getting guns is one of those areas where the NRA and Obama appear to be on the same side. Possibly proving that the NRA is left of center. 🙂 In any case the NRA is no where near as extreme as say the Brady Bunch (or what ever they are calling themselves these days.)

    As for fears of guns getting taken away there are just too many examples of gun registration being a first step towards taking guns away. We have seen this in recent years in both the UK and Australia. You have to understand that I think having a licence plate on my car is a violation of my privacy so registering something else is not something I want to see happen.

    There is no gray area for you and I about Jews and blacks being people. If you think that is the case for everyone you are mistaken. There is no gray area for me about a baby after the first trimester being a person. Before that perhaps there is though having lost a baby in that time period I found it to be very tramatic. A lot more so than losing my tonsels.

    I think that most pro-life people support abortion to save the life of the mother. It is about self defence which is pretty much why many of the same people support the right to have a gun. “their right to blow some guy’s brains out if he wrongs them” is pretty much the arguement of pro-legal abortion people. The nasty baby is pissing them off so they want to kill it. The inconsistancy is not with the pro-life people but the pro-abortion people.

    Caroline Kennedy seems to be most impressed with Obama as being inspiring. So did Teddy. If they had substance in their support I missed it because they emphasised that inspiration at the top of their list. Oh sure not everyone is just impressed with the way he talks but a lot of his supporters do not seem to be doing the research you are.

    Oh and about those stats on people defending themselves v. crimes committed. That only makes sense if you believe that the only way to defend yourself or to commit a violent crime is to kill someone. Several studies have reported that guns are used, often just by showing them, on the order of 2 million times a year. That is several times the number of crimes committed with guns.

    That line Obama made about “maintaining the rights of lawful gun owners?
    What does that mean? There are no lawful gun owners in Washington DC except the government. What gun owners rights is he protecting there? Why did he saw “lawful gun owners?” That leaves the door open for a lot of laws that could violate people’s rights. I have no objection to reasonable gun laws. Vermont has reasonable laws about carrying a firearm. New Hampshires are not that bad either. But to say that Washington DC has reasonable gun laws is just crazy. I have never opposed any law that I thought was reasonable. I have opposed several I thought were unreasonable though.

    These issues are as much about the way they speak to the character of a person as the issues themselves. Does a person believe in personal responsibility, self-determination, privacy, due process or do they support laws that work against those ideals? Do they support a law that says one must assume someone is guilty of breaking the law on buying a gun until they can prove they are innocent (the Brady Law)? Or do they believe in the American principle of innocent until proven guilty? Do they believe that a person has a right to protect themselves and to be secure in their own home or do they vote against repealing the guns laws in Washington DC?

    Are they willing to define someone who is inconvienent as not human or does every person have value? I am very upset that the Bush administration has done so little to prevent abortion. Its a crime against humanity. I sure do hope the next president will be different.

    I may not find anyone I can vote for this year. Pretty sad really.

  4. Matt says:

    When he was in the IL legislature a bill came up to allow people to use guns in their homes for self-protection (SB 2165) and Obama voted against it.

    This is inaccurate. SB 2165 said:

    [I]t is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another.

    In other words, if you illegally own a gun and use it to defend yourself, you’re off the hook. While I think we’ll both agree that laws that “prohibit… private ownership of firearms” are probably unconstitutional, I don’t understand why there’d be an exemption. To borrow the argument of immigration people: they broke the law that we all have to follow; why should we grant them amnesty?

    I’m also not sure what “a lock-up-your-safety device” is, but it sounds like it may basically be a trigger lock. If this interpretation is correct, I’m not sure this is really an anti-gun position.

    There is no gray area for me about a baby after the first trimester being a person.

    Roe v. Wade agrees on some level. It permits abortions in the first trimester, but regulates second- and third-trimester abortions. (Although it does regulate them at different levels.)

    The nasty baby is pissing them off so they want to kill it.

    For some, I’m sure. But there are other questions, like whether they can care for the baby. (A common argument here is that they shouldn’t be having sex if they don’t want a baby; I agree, but the law isn’t to legislate sexual morality.)

    Caroline Kennedy seems to be most impressed with Obama as being inspiring. So did Teddy. If they had substance in their support I missed it because they emphasised that inspiration at the top of their list.

    She does talk about it extensively in her opinion piece in the New York Times, but I think she meant something much deeper than “I’m awed by how well he speaks.” (She also points out that the Democratic candidates tend to be very similar: Obama and Hillary surely have policy differences, but probably 95% of their goals are the same, hence the downplayed focus on the issues in her mind.)

    That only makes sense if you believe that the only way to defend yourself or to commit a violent crime is to kill someone.

    I agree with you here, they were just the best stats I could find. And even finding those took me a while. (Although, if you open that door, you have to also open the door for the amount of non-fatal crime happening with guns: flashing a gun may defend you, but it may also be used to hold up a liquor store.) I won’t delve too deeply into that, because it’d become highly technical and have no clear answer. My point was that just an overwhelming majority of gun deaths were criminal.

    What does that mean? There are no lawful gun owners in Washington DC except the government.

    I don’t know what he meant by that statement, but he couldn’t have been referring to DC, since, as you say, it wouldn’t make any sense. I’d even agree with you that an outright ban on gun ownership is unconstitutional. (I guess there’s also the fact that DC has bizarre status in the Federal government, such as a lack of any (voting) representation in Congress.)

  5. Mr. T says:

    This site – http://www.votechooser.com/ – says I agree most with Obama. Edwards is second. Clinton is third. Screwy world we live in.

Leave a Reply for Matt