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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winchester 73

member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,576
Location
Miami,Florida
The Obama blueprint to dupe gun rights activists.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_commentarie

His rhetorical gimmick is simple. When he addresses a contentious issue, Mr. Obama almost always begins his answer with a respectful nod in the direction of the view he is rejecting -- a line or two that suggests he understands or perhaps even sympathizes with the concerns of a conservative.
At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: "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."

Then came the pivot:

"Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don't think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?"

In conclusion:

"There is a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected that is not mutually exclusive with making sure that we are shutting down gun traffic that is killing kids on our streets. The argument I have with the NRA is not whether people have the right to bear arms. The problem is they believe any constraint or regulation whatsoever is something that they have to beat back. And I don't think that's how most lawful firearms owners think."

In the end, Mr. Obama is simply campaigning for office in the same way he says he would operate if he were elected. "We're not looking for a chief operating officer when we select a president," he said during a question and answer session at Google headquarters back in December.

"What we're looking for is somebody who will chart a course and say: Here is where America needs to go -- here is how to solve our energy crisis, here's how we need to revamp our education system -- and then gather the talent together and then mobilize that talent to achieve that goal. And to inspire a sense of hope and possibility."

Like Ronald Reagan did.
 
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

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...
 
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.
 
Because it's highly publicized, with guns on TV and stuff, and it's something that they can do. Most people don't seem to know there's a difference between action and progress, so... They can ban everyone who doesn't own X gun already from ever owning it, and say they've done something. And when their solution proves to be idiotically inadequate, they just blame someone else.
 
So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don't think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action

This statement is somewhat misleading. The overwhelming majority of these kids were in gang infested neighborhoods and were either caught in random gang gunfire, or shot as a result of mistaken identity by gang members. The Chicago news media uses the phrase "Chicago public students" to create the impression that no child enrolled in a Chicago public school is safe and to instill fear into all the parents, so they will support more gun control. If Obama is elected, expect to hear more if this type deceitful rhetoric nationwide. Of course, you'll never hear him acknowledge that this is a gang problem and NOT a gun problem. I'm so glad I moved out of that city, but unfortunately, I still live too close.
 
Why is gun control always such a highly debated issue?

Because it's the second amendment. Second. Protects the rest of them, kinda like a 'guard' amendment, or a cornerstone.

I agree, we have many other pressing issues to be sure. Heck, I'm unemployed right now, stuck with a mortgage. I may be down to one long gun and one pistol soon...
 
Obama also said he supports the DC gun ban. So much for "individual rights". He's spouting whatever he thinks will get him elected. Nothing new about that. :barf:
 
Ok I feel better, So it is still going to be ok to go to the creek and shoot all the fish. :rolleyes: I guess the guys and gals that want to shoot targets are screwed.:uhoh:

Same ole ramblings as always.
 
He is a politician and will say ANYTHING to get elected. Once he has the power of the presidency, all bets are off. That is when his true agenda will become apparent, and you can bet gun owners and lovers of liberty will recoil in horror. Look closely at this man's past and what he has said and stood for. The future holds much more of the same, or worse. IMHO, he is, perhaps, the most dangerous man in America.
 
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.

Guns are sexy. Gun movies are filled with sexy people, being brave, or cowardly... in general acting larger than life. People automatically identify with the hero, and somewhere in the backs of their minds, assume that the fake action is somehow based in reality.

Also, when someone gets hit "at random", from "gang gunfire", people have the same thought that as when they rubberneck a particularly gruesome auto accident: "But for the grace of God - that could have been me." They think "We've got to do something, or it could be me next time, or my kids!" People that hate guns hate them with a passion that borders on obsession. People that love guns love them similarly. People that view guns as tools (or sporting goods) ask "Why all the fuss?"

The country DOES have many issues that effect our daily lives much more than guns do, but the image of an accountant slaving over the Enron books is just not as sexy as Will Smith staving off the ravenous hordes. Photos of starving kids, borne of drug-dependent parents, hoping that there's a future somewhere that doesn't involve broken glass on cracked pavement just can't compete.
 
Like a good politician, he tends to modulate his message to make it as receptive as possible to a particular audience. Nothing new.
He is a powerful speaker. I have little doubt that he is a good man who believes he is trying to do the right thing. But, just how cautious is he against his own emotions on certain issues; and can he be guarded against the caprices of the masses or any interest group?
One of the insights I have learned in working with some guys from the inner-city is that they all still carry around that "code of the classroom" and "code of the street" mentality. There is also A LOT of immaturity. Evidence of a poor upbringing.
No one is born perfect. Nobody is perfect. But the challenge is to at least inculcate a sense of self-edification.
I would be very impressed with a candidate who can face these facts, take on powerful interest groups who REALLY are the opposition to CHANGE and tell people THEY have a certain responsibility also.
 
Last edited:
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."

Crap. He's going to take away our right to fish, too.
 
This statement is somewhat misleading. The overwhelming majority of these kids were in gang infested neighborhoods and were either caught in random gang gunfire, or shot as a result of mistaken identity by gang members.

your statement is a bit misleading as well. Some of those kids ARE gangmembers!
 
I got to hand it to the guy, He knows how to walk a tightrope... What needs to be done is not only have someone ask the original question that was sked, but fire back and rebut his replies..
 
Grin

I'm sure the NRA/Republicans are busily gathering all sorts of ant-2A stuff on this guy to use in attack ads.. To make it even better - its in his votes and words in black and white and eminently replayable in an attack ad.

Facts that won't play too well in Ohio, Florida or out West. :evil:
 
Gun control is a test for those who would be president. It's fairly black and white. Those who believe the People have a right to own and use firearms know that the Constitution is more important than personal or party agenda, and that the People are supposed to do things for themselves. Those who would go out of their way to restrict guns and the 2A are people who believe the Constitution is a document that should be changed to reflect current feelings (on any issue), rather than a set-in-stone guide and protector of freedom.

A party politician is wise to avoid offending the 2A crowd. However, despite what they know, unless they actually believe in the 2A, they will always screw up when they try to prove they are not Anti-gun. Why? Because they don't have the understanding of the 2A nor of us, as a people. The 2A protects us, and more importantly, the 1A. Sword and Shield of the People, to make an old Soviet phrase perhaps a bit less heinous.

When a politician steps on the 2A, they're telling us the rest of the BOR is also up for possible revocation. I guess that's what I'm saying.
 
If in the case heller vs, if he wins wont the nra be out of business
Short answer ,no.
State Rights are still going to be a powerful factor.Plus the next SCOTUS decision could reverse your Doomsday scenario.
Remember Dred Scott 1859?A black was 3/5 of a human according to Taney's SC.
I believe that's been overturned.
 
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.

A politician's views on the RKBA is a pretty good indicator of what he or she thinks of you. If Candidate X believes you're generally capable of self-government in most things, he or she is likely to be more pro-Second Amendment. If the candidate believes you're part of an unruly mob that needs to be managed for its own good (poor dears), he or she is likely to be a gun-grabber.

So what's more important than whether someone asking for my vote thinks I am a citizen, or a subject?
 
Why is gun control always such a highly debated issue?

Because it is low hanging political fruit. It's far easier to attack the tool than the fool...particularly when the issue is primarily a low income urban problem, and you are a liberal Democrat.
 
Dred Scott had nothing to do with the 3/5ths rule, which was a method of counting people for representation under the Constitution, and for no other purpose.

It is clear from reading his books that Obama regards all constitutional rights as subject to the greater good. I don't think gun control is a big priority with him, which is about all the hope I can come up with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top