Cnn town hall with potus live now.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really. I think I still heard mention of the Australian ban in one answer and he definitely talked about the Chinese guy stabbing kids with a knife being a "better" outcome than the Newtown shooter. President Obama stated that "we can't go as far as Australia RIGHT NOW because of 2nd Amendment blah blah" and I was disappointed that someone, either Cooper or another questioner, didn't point out that although he recognizes he couldn't go that far, such references reinforce the fears that he'd like to ban guns if he thought he could get away with it. Someone needs to ask him the "Feinstein" question; Mr. President, if you could in your ideal world, would you tell Mr. and Mrs. to "turn them all in."?

We both know the answer to that... He would lie to us and tell us that he respects self-defense and hunting and sporting.
 
If you asked a lot of people "precisely" why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, you'd get a lot stammering, and conflicting answers. Historians debate about it sometimes, even.
Perhaps you'd care to specifically mention some historical analysis of the Second Amendment that concludes that it protects the right to intimidate burglars, hunt elk, or Clay pigeon shooting.
 
Also is the AZ sherrif carrying an empty holster? Do you think the SS disarmed him? He is wearing his normal duty belt with cuffs.
Paul Babeu is my Sheriff and he is doing a great job. First republican ever from my Country. He won with 54 and 53% of the vote the first two times. They tried to silence him on immigration by outing him thinking his supporters would abandon him. He got 54% again after that.

Mike

PS. Does anyone have a video link to the entire town hall?
 
FWIW, his 'Chinese stabbing' scenario was less lethal because the madman was focused on cutting kids ears off...not a very convincing argument about that scenario's 'reduced lethality'

(not after Rwanda, anyway)

Also, wth is the leader of the free world thinking, drawing examples from such a horrible country (of disappearances and forced abortions at the hands of the state)? Then having the gall to say we're being paranoid just like Patriot revolutionaries (seriously?), to think confiscation & tyranny are the ultimate goals. What a horse's donkey.

And...today Greg Abbott of Texas is talking Article IV Constitutional Convention, for the express purpose of nullifying federal laws. It's like a needle skipping on a record, man.

TCB
 
I had no more reason to watch that than I would to watch a homeless guy lick a restaurant window...
That one got me.

I didn't watch.

If this thing had taken place in the 19th century it would have been a theatrical production in a playhouse.

Should have been in a Vegas casino.
 
One mistruth I heard Hussein Obama mention more than once, is his "fact" that a gun in the house is more likely to kill the owner/family than stop a criminal (paraphrasing).
 
One mistruth I heard Hussein Obama mention more than once, is his "fact" that a gun in the house is more likely to kill the owner/family than stop a criminal (paraphrasing).
That's a reference to the long-discredited Kellerman study. Even Kellerman finally admitted that it was a seriously flawed study even though he still said that the results were "probably" still valid.

Matt
 
Yeah, a study based entirely on the effects of selection bias "probably" does support that conclusion :rolleyes:

"If this thing had taken place in the 19th century it would have been a theatrical production in a playhouse.

Should have been in a Vegas casino."

Or a musical; so staged I expected Obama or some fawning questioner to break into song (probably "Imagine" by Vlad Lennon) as the spotlight hit them, during the short clip I endured.

TCB
 
Perhaps you'd care to specifically mention some historical analysis of the Second Amendment that concludes that it protects the right to intimidate burglars, hunt elk, or Clay pigeon shooting.
Why would I bother doing that, it has nothing to do with what I said.
 
If you asked a lot of people "precisely" why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, you'd get a lot stammering, and conflicting answers. Historians debate about it sometimes, even.

Why would I bother doing that, it has nothing to do with what I said.

You brought up these anonymous "historians" and appear to be suggesting that the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment is really whatever anybody claims it to be.
 
I haven't read this whole thread, so I apologize if I'm making points that someone else has already raised. If it's bolded or italicized, the emphasis is mine. I have also edited for brevity, but tried to be fair.

1. The transcript can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/transcript-obama-town-hall-guns-in-america/. (Please note that some text is attributed incorrectly, but it's not usually hard to figure out if it's Anderson Cooper or President Obama talking.)

2. I actually have to give CNN kudos for not totally stacking the deck against gun owners. In today's media, sadly, that's what I've come to expect.

3. Regarding Australia and its "buybacks:"
COOPER: You praised [Australian] policies over and over. Back in 2008, you said -- you talked about bitter Americans clinging to their guns. Even now, these executive actions tended (ph) to cause a lot of concern among a lot of people.

What can you say to somebody tonight to convince them that you don't want to take away everybody's guns? That you're not coming for their guns?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, Anderson, I think it's useful to keep in mind, I've been, now, president for over seven years, and gun sales don't seem to have suffered during that time.
(Note how the President does not answer the question. The question was, "What can you say to convince people that you don't want to take away everybody's guns?" The President answers with, "I've been president for over 7 years and gun sales are good.")

4. OBAMA: . . . . Michelle and I are, then, campaigning out in Iowa, and we're going to farms, and we're going to counties, and at one point, Michelle turned to me, and she said, you know, if I was living in a farmhouse where the sheriff's department is pretty far away and somebody can just turn off the highway and come up to the farm, I'd want to have a shotgun or a rifle to make sure that I was protected and my family was protected. And she was absolutely right.

(Note the omission of "handgun" from his list of guns that the First Lady might want.)

5. On background checks:
COOPER: . . . . the vast majority of felons out there -- . . . . The vast majority of criminals get their guns from -- either illegally or for family or friends. So background checks is not something that's going to affect them, is it?

OBAMA: Well, but that's not exactly accurate. Look, first of all, it's important for everybody to understand what I've proposed and what I haven't proposed. What I've said consistently throughout my presidency is I respect the Second Amendment, I respect the right to bear arms. I respect people who want a gun for self-protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship.​
(A dodge and a half-truth. He skips right over the question of the effectiveness of background checks here. What he has "said" is that he respects the 2A. But, IMHO, he has not acted in a manner consistent with respecting the 2A.)

6. On background checks and gun shows:
OBAMA: . . . . And so what we've proposed is that if you have a background check system that has a bunch of big loopholes, which is why a lot of criminals and people who shouldn't have guns are able to get guns...

COOPER: But [criminals are] not buying them at gun shows. Only 1 percent of criminals are buying them at gun shows.

OBAMA: Well, no, but this is what happens. Let's go back to the city of Chicago that has strong gun control laws. And oftentimes, the NRA will point to that as an example and say, see, these things don't work.

Well, the problem is, is that about 30 percent, 40 percent of those guns are coming from Indiana across the border, where there are much laxer laws, and so folks will go to a gun show and purchase a whole bunch of firearms, put them in a van, drive up into Mike Pfleger's neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago where his parish is, open up the trunk, and those things are for sale.

Now, technically, you could say those folks bought them illegally, but it was facilitated by the fact that what used to be a small exception that said collectors and hobbyists don't need to go through a background check has become this massive industry where people who are doing business are, in fact, saying that they're not in the business of selling guns, but are.​
(Three small items: (1) Where does the 30%, 40% come from?; (2) Yeah, you could "technically" say that gunrunning across state lines is illegal, in much the same way that you could "technically" say that possession of heroin with intent to distribute is illegal.; and (3) This last bit about "collectors and hobbyists (almost) looks like he's trying to conflate "private party transactions" with the "Curio and Relics" licsense.)

7. OBAMA: . . . . And we're also trying to close a loophole that has been developing over the last decade, where now, people are using cut-out trusts and shell corporations to purchase the most dangerous weapons -- sawed-off shotguns, automatic weapons, silencers -- and don't have to go through background checks at all.

(Unless I'm mistaken, the person who accepts the transfer of an NFA item for a trust still has to go through a background check. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And if any of the other members of the trust are prohibited people, possession of any firearm is still illegal, trust or no trust.

8. OBAMA: . . . . Now, we can't guarantee that criminals are not going to have ways of getting guns. But, for example, it may be a little more difficult and a little more expensive. And, you know, the laws of supply and demand mean that if something's harder to get and it's a little more expensive to get, then fewer people get them. And that in and of itself could make a difference.

(This was the moment when I said to myself, "and there it is." Note that he can't guarantee that "criminals" won't get guns, but "if something's harder to get and more expensive, fewer people will get them." Not "criminals," but "people.")
 
You brought up these anonymous "historians" and appear to be suggesting that the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment is really whatever anybody claims it to be.
Time out, ShooterMcGavin wasn't talking about the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, and whether it can be whatever anybody claims it can be.

They said,
"Throughout the whole Q/A session, I just wanted someone to ask "Do you know precisely WHY the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights???". Although, I'm sure he would skirt the question "uh, ummm, uh, well Americans, see Americans have a long, uh, uh, uh, tradition of, um.... I met a husband and wife... on the campaign, uh, trail and they were, um... they had concerns, uh, that I was going to take away their, uh.... uh, guns, and ...".


You can find all sorts of people debating about "precisely" why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. A lot of people have opinions on why it was included, but as far as I know, the Constitutional Convention was held in secret. So nobody these days knows precisely why it was included in the Bill of Rights.

Do you have some documentation or research that precisely demonstrates why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights? Please provide a source...obviously it would have to be one of the founders who worked on making sure it was included in the Bill of Rights.

If I'm missing something, enlighten me - in all honesty. I love history.
 
It seems that there are some serious gaps in your education. I would suggest that you begin with the majority opinion from the District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) case authored by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia.
 
8. OBAMA: . . . . Now, we can't guarantee that criminals are not going to have ways of getting guns. But, for example, it may be a little more difficult and a little more expensive. And, you know, the laws of supply and demand mean that if something's harder to get and it's a little more expensive to get, then fewer people get them. And that in and of itself could make a difference.

(This was the moment when I said to myself, "and there it is." Note that he can't guarantee that "criminals" won't get guns, but "if something's harder to get and more expensive, fewer people will get them." Not "criminals," but "people.")
And that's the same line of thinking all the anti's have been spewing for decades with the same results, which is more guns in wrong hands. Insanity.

I'd love to see a one hour debate between Obama and an NRA rep with no screened questions and a panel of three moderators: one anti, one pro 2A, and one middle of the road.

Obama will walk out looking like a lightweight who just got out of the ring with Chuck Liddell.
 
One mistruth I heard Hussein Obama mention more than once, is his "fact" that a gun in the house is more likely to kill the owner/family than stop a criminal (paraphrasing).
It's premised on the intentional deception that you haven't defended yourself with a gun UNLESS you've KILLED somebody.

Apparently, if your assailant sees the gun and runs, or you shoot him and he lives, you haven't ACTUALLY defended yourself.

I always ask anti-gun cultists, "If that's the case, have you not defended yourself with the martial arts unless you've choked, beaten or kicked somebody to DEATH??? And should people carry sarin or mustard gas instead of pepper spray?"
 
It seems that there are some serious gaps in your education. I would suggest that you begin with the majority opinion from the District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) case authored by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia.
There seems to be some major disconnect between what I'm saying, and what you're saying. I apologize if I have caused some kind of confusion in this regard.

What you suggest I read (after insulting my education level, yeah thanks for that, not really necessary) is an INTERPRETATION and OPINION of the MEANING of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. Which I am well aware of...in fact I'd guess most here probably are.

That does not, and will not, precisely tell us WHY the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights by the founders. That decision was made among those who drafted the Constitution, and I'm not aware of any definitive source that states something like:

"Due to Mr. Madison's concern of fighting another tyrannical government, we put the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights so individuals could keep and bear arms to fight such a government."

-or-

"Because the gentleman from Pennsylvania was concerned about retaining the rights we have already enjoyed and defended, the 2nd amendment was included to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms."

-or-

"We put this in because we feel a standing army is not necessary in peace time, so individuals must keep and bear arms to form militias to defend a free state...should the need arise again."

-or-
"Without this, we'd never get the Constitution ratified by Virginia."

Now, the MEANING of the 2nd amendment is generally quite agreed upon (though even that's contested by some...meh), and it's well detailed in the Supreme Court opinion you referenced, which by the way I found a link to here, for anyone else who is interested (it is a great read about historical references to the intent and meaning behind the 2nd amendment):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

As to my "anonymous historians" here are some selected perspectives on why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights from just one webpage:
http://www.voanews.com/content/scholars_debate_second_amendment_to_us_constitution/1443917.html

Most (emphasis is mine) scholars say the Constitution might not have been ratified had Americans not been assured that 10 special amendments would be added to check the power of the government and to guarantee individual liberties.

Many early Americans feared the tyranny that a standing army might impose, so they wanted to keep military power under civilian control by allowing private citizens to keep arms.

...Stephen Halbrook, a Washington, D.C. attorney and a leading scholar of the Second Amendment...says the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect many of the same rights they initially enjoyed as Englishmen. In the months leading up to the American Revolution, many colonists were deprived of several freedoms, including the right to own firearms, so that the British could enforce laws many Americans considered unjust.

For Fordham University historian Saul Cornell, the Second Amendment is more concerned with maintaining national defense through citizen militias than with protecting individual gun ownership rights.

David Hardy, another constitutional scholar and Arizona attorney, says the framers of the Constitution had both individual rights and citizen militias in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment

Anyways, I hope this clears some of this up. I don't want to continue dragging this out, but due to the nature of your last reply, I felt I should at least speak my piece and be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top