Obama on the Second Amendment:Here Lies the Danger.From the WSJ.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies . . .; and it would give them the full liberty of speech . . .; to hold public meetings on political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857).

Gun control is a huge priority to Obama and, more so, to his wife.
 
Like the article says, he makes a slight bow toward other opinions, but he has already gone on record as supporting a handgun ban, with confiscation; a ban on semi-automatic weapons, with confiscation; a ban on pump shotguns, with confiscation; and several kinds of microstamping of ammunition and any weapons that might still be legally owned.

Nice to know he is such a strong "supporter of the Second Amendment" as his campaign insists.

Jim
 
The 2nd Amendment is hotly debated because it boils down to the age old forces wishing to rule the masses versus the individuals who wish to be free. Both sides are relentless, so it is whichever side that relaxes will lose for a time. But it is in the nature of humanity that the struggle will continue forever. We can only win periods of respite with vigilance.
 
The 2nd Amendment is hotly debated because it boils down to the age old forces wishing to rule the masses versus the individuals who wish to be free. Both sides are relentless, so it is whichever side that relaxes will lose for a time. But it is in the nature of humanity that the struggle will continue forever. We can only win periods of respite with vigilance.
Click to expand...

Excellent analogy,Run&Shoot.
Your last sentence rings so true.
 
Individual liberty is possible only within the collectivity?

So, yes, he's a charismatic socialist orator out of sync with the American democratic spirit. Would he still be a socialist if he was President? Um, yes.
 
Sometimes I think we forget the part about "a well-regulated militia." now some think this means well-equipped, but I believe most would acknowledge that a certain degree of control is built into the amendment. I believe that regulation of firearms should be kept to an absolute minimum. Before anyone says any regulation is an infringement, do you support violent felons being able to own weapons, or people who are mentally unstable? If we are going to get antis to see us as reasonable, we need to think and say reasonable things and acknowledge that the government does have a say (although small) in what we do with our weapons.

That being said, Obama is a liar and will likely support any ban on weapons that crosses his desk.

The purpose of the second amendment is to keep the government in check, not for "fishing rights." thank you for that obama. I believe that we should be able to own ANY weapon that is servicable by one person or a 2-3 man crew so long as the owner is mentally stable, well-trained, and can insure that these more destructive weapons are properly secured.
 
He is all rhetorical gimmick, I just do not understand why those who vote for him do not see that.
Click to expand...
Because they don't choose to see it.

I was somewhat forcefully (and uncomfortably) reminded of that this past weekend. My wife and I took her granddaughter for a sightseeing visit to a fairly large city. The son of an elderly (and now deceased) friend of mine lives in a 'burb of said large city, so for the sake of old times and memory of his mother we arranged to get together over dinner.

This chap is a liberal. I knew that. His wife is a PhD and an immigrant, so I had hoped that the disease hadn't infected her. Alas, it had. I was scrupulous in avoiding any comments or subjects that might provide any opportunity for the election to enter the chit-chat, but finally he came right out and asked me if I preferred Hillary or Obama. Both he and his wife appeared shocked when I said I had no use for either, because they are both liars and do not stand for the Constitution.

They immediately assumed that meant I must be a McCain supporter. Once I explained that I am NOT a McCain supporter, and that I am by choice an unaffiliated voter because I do not believe that our two-party system serves either us or the Constitution, they simply didn't know what to do. It was obvious, though, that they are Obama-philes. He finally asked "But why don't you like Obama?" I tried to explain that Obama is a man of no experience, no moral compass that I can see, and clearly (to me) in the pocket of the Illinois political machine, and that in good conscience (I thought that might get his attention -- wrong) I could not support such a candidate for President.

I thought he was going to cry. Really. Honestly. He just ... didn't ... know ... how ... to ... deal ... with ... it.

If he weren't his mother's son, which would have made it impolite, I would have burst out laughing.
 
If in the case heller vs, if he wins wont the nra be out of business
Click to expand...

You choose:

A: Yes, because all the education and training and range safety programs and hunter support and law enforcement support and rifle, shotgun, and pistol competition activities and youth shooting and gun safety for kids programs that constitute the vast majority of NRA activity will instantly be nullified by a favorable SCOTUS decision.

- or -

B: Yes, Heller will settle gun rights once and for all, just like Roe v. Wade totally settled all that controversy about you-know-what once and for all.
 
There's a Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I've got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably -- it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That's what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that's a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families
Click to expand...
It's shocking that he would say this, and yet has also said he wants all semi-autos to be banned, and a national ban on CCW..

I wonder if we'll see a return of the "flip-flop" ad blitz or if they'll just go all out and accuse him of lying...
Click to expand...

Why are you surprised? He merely stated that in his opinion, the Constitution states that the 2ndA is a right that will not be infringed. He did not say he agreed with it. In fact, he had stated by his other replies that he disagrees with it.
 
a certain degree of control is built into the amendment.
Click to expand...
The term "regulated" does not refer to prohibition, but to enhancement and facilitation.

Consder cars today: we have lots of regulatory driving laws. They are not geared toward preventing as many from driving as possible, but instead to facilitate safe, efficient, simplified driving. We all drive on the same side of the road, obey (more or less) posted speed limits, stop at red lights, buy 87-94 octane gas, etc. all not because the powers that be are trying to stop us from driving, but to FACILITATE the process by "regulating" behavior into cooperative, predictable, understood behaviors that help everyone get where they're going.

That was the intent of the prefatory clause of the 2ndA: make sure that everyone had comparable/useful equipment, knew how to use it, and knew at least the basics of how to work together toward the common goal of national defense (of which individual defense is the atomic component thereof). This was emphasized by the Militia Act of 1792, enacted promptly after the 2ndA: it identified everyone who was generally expected to contribute to national defense, required they be minmally equipped at their own cost, and directed various levels of government to coordinate activities. "Regulate" had nothing to do with preventing certain classes from being armed.

I believe that we should be able to own ANY weapon that is servicable by one person or a 2-3 man crew
Click to expand...
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find limiting? If someone can afford the equipment and crew to form a battleship or B-2 - way more than 3 people - they're free to do so.

The popular "nothing bigger than servicable by 1-3 people" notion usually forgets that the bigger stuff is so expensive and costly to maintain that, beginning with the number of people able to afford it being vanishingly small, the number of people within that vanishingly small number willing to do something terminally stupid with it is relatively vanishingly small. It's not like you can just wander down to the hardware store and pick up a nuke for a week's salary. Additionally, anyone who IS rich enough to do something terminally stupid with such an expensive item is also rich enough to not be deterred by a few measly laws saying they can't.
 
2nd

the NRA was started by Generals who saw the poor shooting of the northern soldiers.and wanted to change that.It is the national keeper of shooting records.it will not be gone if SCOTUS is a win.for those of you that do not belong to NRA shame on you.
The NRA only came into the political arena when forced to.and the main NRA cannot politic or it will lose its 501 status.thats the job of the IFLA.:uhoh:
:confused:----:fire:---:banghead:---:D
 
If in the case heller vs, if he wins wont the nra be out of business
Click to expand...
Heller will only be the first step on a very very long road towards restoring the Second Amendment. And I assure you that each step will be vigorously opposed. We will have to fight for every inch.

Mike
 
Obama's ideas and answer shouldn't shock you. It is an old trick in politics. It has been used since time itself. It is called A LIE! A partial truth is a lie, a whole untruth is a lie, and men that specialize in lies aren't usually good at anything else.
To tell you he respects the 2nd ammendment but wants to preserve the rights to fish and hunt. KEEP AND BEAR means have and carry. He wants to abolish CCW.
So do I. I don't think a right should require a permit anymore than I should have to get permission from the Kounty Kommissar to put a shed on MY property.

The best advice I can give those that don't trust Senator Obama is not vote for him.
 
Why is gun control always such a highly debated issue? The country has far more greater problems from what I can see than what I have in my safe.
Click to expand...


Uhmm......b/c theres a school shooting about every week and it's thus in the public spotlight all the time.
 
And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families."
Click to expand...

Finally someone brings up the importance of fishing to the 2nd amendment. Additionally, and unless I'm hunting whales, my 9mm will be just fine for the rainbow trout this year. And for those of you wishing to debate whether I'll need a .45 for the trout because of overpenetration and lack of trout stopping power, I have one question: how are you going to eat the fish if you obliterate it with the .45? I'm just asking. Barak brought it up.


Just kidding... ;)
 
About fishing, I think he is refering to people who carry a pistol for protection from snakes and things while fishing.

I used to carry a 45 Long Colt snubby from Astra when I went fishing.

Everyone knows you need a 40 for rainbow trout! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Obama's Gun Dance
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
P
  • Locked
Obama on Gun Control
Replies
4
Views
569
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
F
  • Locked
Isn't Self-Defense Common Sense?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
AZ-Mike
A
A
  • Locked
Dave Kopel on Clinton & Obama in Wall street Journal
Replies
1
Views
705
kingpin008
K
T
  • Locked
Obama Claims He Supports Individual Gun Rights
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
7K
Winchester 73
W
Back
Top