Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control

The three Democratic presidential candidates leading in most polls were in Iowa this past weekend.  Radio Iowa's microphone caught up with Edwards Friday night on the Iowa State Fairgrounds after he spoke to a Polk County Democrats gathering there.  New York Senator Hillary Clinton talked with Radio Iowa after her Saturday morning appearance in a Marshalltown middle school then late Saturday afternoon Illinois Senator Barack Obama spoke with Radio Iowa just before he spoke to a gathering of community activists at the ICAN convention.

Each made a point of talking about gun rights, and none of the three endorsed such proposals as gun registration or a ban on handguns.

Read the text of their brief thoughts on gun control after the jump.  Click on the Radio Iowa story, go to the bottom and you'll find an audio link if you want to hear their comments.  On Friday, Delaware Senator/Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said gun control can be a "liability" for Democrats if it goes too far.  Here's that Radio Iowa story -- with an audio link at the bottom.  Biden closes by saying:  "I don't agree with some in my party who are very, very strict on gun control issues."

DMR columnist David Yepsen:  "Question on your rural proposal here.  You said..."

Edwards:  "Thank goodness somebody's asking a question about my rural proposal." (Edwards laughed; do you think that was a mention of the stories on Friday about his $400 haircut?)

Yepsen: "This is Iowa.  You said in here that you will also crack down on gun crimes.  How?"

Edwards:  "What we're going to do is, I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters rights to be protected and it's part of my culture and the way I grew up, but I don't think you need an AK-47 to hunt and I think there are a number of things that we can do including a renewal of the assault weapons ban, closing the gun show loophole so that we make sure that we have the information that we need.  I would add to that that in light of what's happened at Virginia Tech that we need to do a better job of making sure the registry that's used for the instant check includes people who've had a history of some mental problems because it's a spotted history but there was certainly some history about this gunman."

Yepsen:  "Senator, this has been a difficult issue for Democrats, as you know."

Edwards:  "It is."

Yepsen:  "How do you balance it and does Virginia Tech change the topic...

Edwards:  "The dynamic?"

Yepsen:  "...and make it more acceptable for a Democrat to be for gun control?"

Edwards: "That's a good question.  I think that what's acceptable is for Democrats and Democratic presidential candidates to actually say what they believe and for me, this is part of my culture.  It's the way I grew up and I think it is important to protect people's Second Amendment rights but I think there's a balance in it and there's some weapons, particularly automatic weapons that included in the assault weapons ban, that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."

Another reporter in the group asked a question on a different topic. 

Next, Hillary Clinton answers a couple of my questions:

Henderson:  "In your last answer to the last question upstairs, you mentioned the 'crazed killer' at Virginia Tech.  Do you think this situation has created a renewed environment for the debate about gun control, or is that still too sticky an issue for Democrats?"

Clinton:  "Well, I think what it really raises is the need to enforce the laws that we already have and to work with states so that they have the resources and the specific requirements as to what they're supposed to do.  It's come to light that Virginia hasn't really enforced the provision in the Brady Bill to put information like being committed involuntarily, as the shooter was, into the database and then have the database effective enough so that it pops up if somebody tries to buy a gun so the first thing we ought to focus on is figuring out what's gone wrong in actually enforcing all the laws we have and, you know, seeing if we can't do a better job of that."

Henderson:  "What about the assault weapons ban or restrictions on bullets?"

Clinton:  "Well, there is evidence that I've read about that the killer had ammunition that would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban.  You know, look, I think the balancing act is clear here to everybody.  You have to balance Second Amendment rights against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people who are unstable and that has always been what everyone I know has been seeking to accomplish and maybe this tragic incident will get us to think about how to get back to that balance."

Finally, here is the text of what Obama said during a Radio Iowa interview:

Henderson: "I'm wondering if what happened at Virginia Tech, in your opinion, might alter the debate about gun control."

Obama:  "It's early to make a full assessment on how this changes our politics and the public mood.  I think all of us are still just overwhelmed with grief for the families and for Virginia Tech and obviously people here remember what happened at the university and how painful it can be (a reference to the shootings at the University of Iowa). I do think that the evidence so far at least indicates that you've got a young man who was mentally deranged, was identified as such, was temporarily committed and was still able to obtain handguns and so one critical question is, 'What happened to our background check system? Why did it fail?' and it seems like we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on making that background system, background check system work.  The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips.  I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms.  I'm a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family.  It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic.  I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."

Henderson:  "Do you think this is a prickly issue for Democrats?"

Obama:  "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 and you know because of the breadth of their membership and the large amounts of money that they have at their disposal, I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners into thinking that Democrats are going to take away their rights and part of what I think we have to communicate is that 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 or make sure that straw purchasers aren't dumping firearms into our inner cities."

Comments

[C Doucette]

I want my automatic weapons available to kill people who would otherwise kill, hurt or ravage me. Not for hunting. Many may think that Guns have no place in a civil society and they have a good point under this ideal premise. However, a civil society can quickly break down under a verity of situations. When the existing structures of "protection" break down, we are left at our own device. As a cival citizen, I do not want my future options for protection taken away from me.

[Police]

Here is the long and short of it. Firearms are a HUGE part of our history. If it were not for firearms in the hands of good people we would not have a country. Now before anyone gets on here and starts complaining that these are different times and we aren't trying to fight to form our own government - chill out. Granted gun crime is a terrible thing - but you have to remember that it is not the gun that commits the crime - it is the person with that gun. I am a police officer and I have seen this stuff - if the guy doesn't have a gun he uses a knife, a bat, a beer bottle - whatever he has at his disposal. Taking away our "19-clip semi-automatics" (whatever that is supposed to be) isn't going to stop those who illegitimately have these weapons from using them. If anything they will be more likely to use them because they know the chance of receiving deadly opposition has been restricted/removed. There are plenty of people out there who should not have these weapons, I won't argue that - but use your heads when it comes to making laws to address the issues. Good people should have the right to own firearms for protection and for sport(including those "19-clip semi-automatics")

[Gunownner]

I personally own approx. 70 firearms. Yes, many of these guns are assalt rifles and yes in the hands of the wrong people they can be very dangerous. But what people dont take the time to consider is the fact that the majority of gun owners are not criminals. They are respectful law obiding citizens who would never imagine harming anyone else. Its the 1 or 2 percent of people in this country that make rest of us look bad. Believe me, there is nothing, more thrilling fireing of a few rounds out of an AR-15 or AK-47 (in a very safe and and controlled environment). Those of us who own wepons shouuld not have to pay for the actions of criminals. The sport of shooting is alive and well,and it needs to stay that way forever!!!!

[Neil]

it is insane to think that any candidate should be for the ban on assault weapons. This county is built on the idea that if the government becomes too powerful that the people have the duty to overthrow that government. How could the people over throw a tyrant leader without access to the same weapons that the tyrant has? According to the bill of rights, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." how can the people have a militia if they do not have weapons? Also if you think that the government should be in charge of providing weapons for the militia, how is that going to happen if a tyrant leader tells the states to pull all of those weapons?

It just doesn't make any sense.

Sure there should be some gun control, people who have killed, are mentally ill, or have been convicted of violent crime should be very closely examined before they are allowed to buy weapons, and most of them should not be allowed to.

On the topic of conceal and carry laws, i agree that you should have to be 21 to do this, but it should never be taken away, and should be encouraged. Think that if a thief went into a bank with a gun and 1/4 of the people had a pistol do you think that the robber is going to get away?
No they wont.

you have the right to disagree with me and i would love to talk to people about this but before you contradict me, do some research for yourself and then decide for your self.

[FFQ44]

The reason the leftists keep making these mistakes about guns (e.g. "19-clip semiautomatic") is that they never bother to do any real-world research. Can anyone who is against "civilian ownership of automatic weapons" tell us the statistics on crimes committed with legally-owned machineguns? What laws regulate civilian ownership of machineguns, and when were they passed?

Sure, leftists love guns, in movies and on t-shirts. Can you picture a faux-Muslim promising to introduce segregation at the point of his M1 Carbine? Leftist hero (and former pimp, though Spike Lee didn't see fit to mention it).

People who actually know anything about guns are overwhelmingly anti-gun control, just as people who have driven in cars rarely want them banned. And the people who want to ban a category of a gun because it isn't needed can certainly explain whether or not cars are "needed" - humanity certainly can survive without cars, and guns, and free speech, and antibiotics. Certain individual humans cannot.

[Eva Wilhelm]

Amazing! A whole country living in fear of each other, not able to contemplate life without gun ownership. I am over 50, have lived in Germany,Austria,India,Canada,Japan and now in Australia. I have never! lived in a home or known anyone who ever needed to live with a gun! Create sensible gun laws, create a "fair go" society and stop being afraid of each other, for goodness sake!

[C. Clark]

I personally am inclined to agree most with Barack Obama here. I own firearms. I've been trained with them since I was five years old. I know exactly how to responsibly use one and I think it is my privilege to do so, but I *DO NOT* think it is necessary for people to own automatic weapons. There is no need for a private citizen to own one. A lot of people may argue that we need them for defense against invasion or to fight back against our own government if necessary and site documents from over 200 years ago to justify it. I say this: Since then numerous changes have been undergone in our political process to insure that all changes that may need to be made in our government can be made without the use of force. (see Shay's Rebellion/Thje Whiskey Rebellion/The Civil War) Secondly, the last time an invasion by a foreign power occurred was when the Japanese invaded Alaska (which at the time wasn't even a state)in 1942, which was fought by this little thing called the US Army.

In this day and age it's not those who are buying guns for hunting and defense that are the issue. It's people who want to own firearms for the distinct purpose of doing harm to another human being. Moreover than restricting the legal purchase of firearms, candidates should be pursuing the even more dangerous illegal purchase of firearms. The vast majority of dealers are doing the background checks and following procedure but if a 15 year old kid can buy a used .38 for $100 off "a guy they know" then what's the point?

On the flip side however, I do think he is overstepping it a little as to outlawing semiautomatic firearms. I see little reason for that.

[Mason Hime]

I am 13 years old and i have firearms for hunting and self defence. i beleave we have a right to own firearms for hunting. maybe clinton should upgrade the registration on weapons. i love this sport of hunting please dont take it away!

[Jim Hirschberg]

The Dems comments above are very telling in that they all pay lip service to hunters and then justify their reasons to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, but the 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting! Our founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution as a safeguard for us, the citizens to have the ability to defend ourselves, our families, our property and our country from attackers foreign and domestic and even to overthrow our own government if the need arose. THAT'S what the 2nd amendment provides us. In 1787 Thomas Jefferson said, "From time to time the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants- it is its natural manure". He knew that if the people were disarmed they would have no means to preserve the Constitution or their freedoms- after all, the 2nd Amendment is the only way we (citizens) can protect the rest of the Bill of Rights and that's why we need rifles with "19 round clips".

[Let's Think, Now]

As for "Utopia" being no more guns, you couldn't be more incorrect, sir (or ma'am).

What do you think will happen if every gun was banned?
First off, the people would go absolutely crazy. The constitution would be have to be re-amended, and hunters and gun-owners would protest all over the world. They'd hoard and keep their guns, possibly starting massive scale riots and disaster.

Plus, there are HUNDREDS of other weapons for a deranged lunatic to use. Unless you wanted to ban, say, all kitchen and chef knives, dynamite, grenades, explosives of any kind, flamethrowers, chainsaws, swords, and the list goes on and on and on.

And even then ,some people can make dangerous explosives using only household items. So what then?

CHAOS, that's what.

[misc.]

i was looking online for a school project and ran acrost a small comment by obama that said"band all semi atomatic weapons" banding ALL semi auto guns wouldnt make a differns. that wont stop kids from coming to schools with guns! in some case's it will just agrravate them to do it more as an act of rebeling.

[sharon maxson]

Who is going to protect us when our guns are banned. Do you really believe the criminals are going to tip toe in and hand theirs over? It is time to stop dreaming up ideals and live in the real world

[Bubba Phillips]

It's about time that someone put a stop to people having all these guns! If we ban guns, ALL of them, all of our crime problems would be solved! I mean, there are people in this world who rob, rape, burn, steal and pillage, and all we have to do is tell these people, "Look, NO MORE GUNS!". Then, they will surely stop robbing, raping, burning and pillaging! See, if they know that the average citizen can't have a gun in his home to protect himself, they will feel too guilty to storm the home and rape, burn, and pillage there! And, see, even the VERY FEW of them, the really hardcore ones who would try to get guns anyway despite the fact that they were banned will never be able to get their hands on any once they were outlawed! When they do finally get outlawed, it will be impossible to smuggle any into the country so we know that no criminals will have any!

I tell you what, we need to go ahead and make cocaine, heroin and stuff like that illegal, too, and then our society would be a LOT better off because no one would ever use drugs again...and, like the gun issue, the few who would want to would not be able to get any if they were against the law, because there wouldn't be any on US soil! Damn, why didn't we do this before!

Now that I think about it, it would probably be a good idea to criminalize molesting children, stealing, and a host of other terrible things...then, in the blink of an eye, UTOPIA!

[Steven]

Ditto to the above. People think democrats will take their guns from them because the democrats don't even know their info most of the time and have such loose language in what they say needs to change. No, you don't need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, but you might need 19 rounds to protect yourself from an attacker. Guns aren't just about hunting. It's also personal safety. I hate to say it because even though I am a gun owner I don't really like guns all that much-but the reality is that there are people out there who have guns and who want to do criminal things with those guns so I feel that I need to even that playing field in order to feel comfortable. There isn't anything I can think of that is as effective as a semi-auto or a pump action shotgun at scaring off a potential criminal.

[A. Smith]

Since I just presented my 14 year old with a Stevens Model 25, .22 semi-automatic rifle for use with close supervision, something that fathers have done through the ages as a start to proper gun ownership. My question/comment to the candidates is this, you mention the ban of semi-auto weapons in general, am I to assume this includes said .22 and any other semi-auto regardless of use, ie semi-auto hunting rifles such as a Remington Model 7400? It's this kind of general language that puts those of us that legally own and use firearms on the opposite side of the fence from you. Secondly, why is it that the same rifle that's considered an assault weapon in my hands is just another rifle in the hands of a law enforcement officer, this particular idea is something I've pondered for years without an answer.

[AbNo]

Well, let's see.....

For Edwards.... The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) didn't ban ANY automatic weapons.

For Clinton.... The AWB didn't ban ANY types of ammo.

For Obama.... I'm going to presume you meant "19 round MAGAZINE", as a "19-clip semi-automatic" would be INCREDBILY heavy, as 95 rounds, in 5-round clips (standard size for an ammo clip) would be almost impossible to use, due to weight alone.

That being said, the Walther P22, and Glock 17 Cho used had 10 and 15 round magazines, respectively.