POLITICS - Obamanble 2nd Amendment

[Old Ironsights]

Obama's Toothless Second Amendment
The senator defends the right to whatever arms the government decides to allow.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127292.html

"What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," Barack Obama said after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Washington, D.C., gun ban. The Illinois senator was talking about gun control laws, but he could just as well have been talking about his interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Although the amendment protects an individual right to arms, Obama says, it permits "common-sense" gun control, a category that for him seems to include every existing restriction on the possession and use of firearms. That view not only does not fly in Cheyenne (and in many other places where presidential candidates aspire to win votes); it was decisively rejected by the Supreme Court.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms," Obama said after the ruling was announced, "but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view."

Not quite. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun law, which "bans handgun possession in the home" and "requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable," violates the Second Amendment because it effectively prohibits keeping guns for self-defense.

Last November, by contrast, Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." The candidate was so upset about that misrepresentation of his views that he sought to correct it—seven months later. A few hours before the Supreme Court pronounced the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional, an Obama spokesman told ABC News his campaign's November statement to the contrary "was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the senator's consistent position."

That belated blurification was an inartful attempt to avoid explaining the senator's consistent position, which he has repeatedly confirmed. In a February 12 interview, Leon Harris of WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional." Obama nodded, saying, "Right, right." Three days later, at a press conference in Milwaukee, Obama cited the D.C. law as an example of gun control that's consistent with the Second Amendment.

Obama's view is similar to that of Justice Stephen Breyer, who dissented from the Supreme Court's decision. Even if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, Breyer said, that right has to be weighed against "other important governmental interests." And since a gun law like D.C.'s might reduce violent crime (never mind the lack of evidence that it actually has), the courts should yield to legislators' judgments about how best to strike the balance.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia replied: "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government...the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all."

This decision does not bode well for Chicago's handgun ban, which was challenged in federal court the day after the Supreme Court's ruling. Since the Court held that D.C. violated the Second Amendment by banning the sort of gun most people prefer for home defense, the only real question in the Chicago case is whether the amendment applies to state and local governments as well as federal domains such as the District of Columbia.

It seems likely that the right to arms—which, Scalia emphasized, stems from the basic right of self-preservation—will be added to the list of civil liberties that the 14th Amendment compels states and municipalities to respect. If so, Obama's vision of a toothless Second Amendment will not prevail for much longer even in Chicago.

[Ysabel Kid]

Obama is going to go from being no good to a Presidential thing...

[gundownunder]

Sounds like you boys are going to be in a deep pile of it when you get your new dictator.

[homefront]

I've said it before...

That man is NOT electable in this country, despite what the DEPARTMENT of LIES and PROPAGANDA (big city media) wants us to believe.

Not because he's black - many Americans, myself included, would vote for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat. I'm pretty sure they're black - they're also competent.

He's not electable because he's a bad liar. He lies as much as Bill Clinton (say 10 Hail Marys, wash mouth out with soap), but with half the skill. He's a left-wing nitwit and most of the country knows it. I just hope he continues to contradict himself and express his far left wacko views to a country that is dying for an honest person who will put this country and its people first on the presidential agenda.

[Haycock]

I've said it before...

That man is NOT electable in this country, despite what the DEPARTMENT of LIES and PROPAGANDA (big city media) wants us to believe.

Not because he's black - many Americans, myself included, would vote for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat. I'm pretty sure they're black - they're also competent.

He's not electable because he's a bad liar. He lies as much as Bill Clinton (say 10 Hail Marys, wash mouth out with soap), but with half the skill. He's a left-wing nitwit and most of the country knows it. I just hope he continues to contradict himself and express his far left wacko views to a country that is dying for an honest person who will put this country and its people first on the presidential agenda.

+1... big time... though I hope your assessment of the ratio of rational vs. emotional (voting) citizens is correct.

Haycock

[AJMD429]

Not because he's black . . .
He's not electable because he's a bad liar.

But whenever I point out his blatant lies, my liberal/enlightened/self-anointed friends who know better than I what is good for the world tell me I'm just a "bigot" and dislike him because of his race. So to those people, he IS electable, precisely BECAUSE his race makes him un-criticizable...

Hopefully I just have too durn many liberal whacko friends and he'll lose the election. Of course McCain isn't much better.

If I thought it would work, I'd write in Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or even Alan Keyes, and all of them are black.

Or maybe Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or even Neal Boortz...!

[homefront]

Just write in Ron Paul.

[44LVR]

He's not electable because he's a bad liar. He lies as much as Bill Clinton (say 10 Hail Marys, wash mouth out with soap), but with half the skill.

That is why I think you are wrong. Slick Willy was elected, then reelected. Even with the electorate knowing about him.

We have no good choices but I'm afraid there are too many people out there looking toward his promise of 'free' everything and will elect him.

People were dumb enough to fall for ol' Willie twice, I think they will again. I have little faith in people that are promised 'free' stuff.

44

[homefront]

Clinton gave US citizens many good reasons to listen hard to everything a candidate says, and compare it to what they say and do later.
Hussein Obama not only doesn't know enough to disguise his faaaar left views to fool us, he doesn't know enough to be consistent in his statements. He's getting hammered by "neo-con" media very convincingly, and the real America is listening.

[donw]

obama and his spouse are racists of the highest order, IMO...he is NOT qualified in ANY way (except being a 'natural' born citizen) to be in the senate, let alone be president.

we are making a HUGE mistake if we allow this 'person' to be elected to the presidency...

[tman]

there are more democratic gun owners than the media will allow us believe. if bush wasnt so aTOTAL FAILURE as commander in cheif, you won.t be getting obama as our next commander in chief. it's gonna be okay, don't worry.

[handirifle]

In MHO, I do not think was even close to being a failure. he's made mistakes, some big ones, but to call him a failure, is overlooking a lot of facts.

Katrina is NOT Bush's fault, nor was the initial handling of it. Those responsibilities were handed over to dept of Homeland Security, Chertoff, and being a newbie, and a new agency, they boggled it, but so did the Lousianna Gov and the Moron mayor of NO.

The corruption in that city was made evident by all the cops that jumped ship. They were either crooks or were not going to risk their lives for crooks.

One thing for sure, we have not had a single attack on our soil since 9-11 and many attempts were caught.

The war in Iraq is truthfully winding down, but Afghanastan is picking up, but nowhere near the level it was.

Bush put Justices in office (against great opposition by dumbocrats) that gave us the Heller ruling. I do not blame the economy on Bush, that's naive, in my opinion, the greed of lenders and borrowers has caused the major portion of it. People out here were buying multiple homes, already way overpriced, and re-listing them for 20 to 30K higher in a week.

Home builders here will build homes in "phases" of 10 to 15 homes, with each new "phase" being priced 15 to 20K more than the previous one.

The thing Bush, and others before him, have NOT done, was push for SOLAR , Wind and overal national energy effeciency.

I really Pray he doesn't get elected, but I also know, that if he does it IS God's will and will accept it for that. I will NOT like it though.

One thing I'm really starting to like about Mc cain, is he IS truthful.

[44LVR]

there are more democratic gun owners than the media will allow us believe.

Lets hope not. Because that would be a demographic that votes for politicians that take away their rights

if bush wasnt so aTOTAL FAILURE as commander in cheif,

I agree. Because there was that series of suicide attacks all across America in 2002 and 2003, the biological attack against the 10 largest cities in 2005 and those dozen nukes that went off in our port cities. And all those other attacks on 'Cole' sized vessels across the world.

Add to that the liberal anti-gun Supreme Court Justices he appointed that destroyed the 2nd Amendment and said it was collective right only.......Yep, that TOTAL FAILURE..........

you won.t be getting obama as our next commander in chief. it's gonna be okay, don't worry.

Hey, all it would do is complete our tranformation to Socialism

44
44

[homefront]

I really Pray he doesn't get elected, but I also know, that if he does it IS God's will and will accept it for that.

I respectfully disagree.

My pastor has been trying to help me not blame God for my son's death. She has pointed out that God has given us free will, and any intervention on His part would render free will meaningless. She says that God cries with us in our suffering, as He did for His Son's suffering. This has opened up a whole new perspective for me.

If Obama Hussein gets elected, God will cry with us, and those who voted for him will answer for it on Judgment Day.

[Doc Hudson]

Not because he's black - many Americans, myself included, would vote for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat. I'm pretty sure they're black - they're also competent.

He's not electable because he's a bad liar. He lies as much as Bill Clinton (say 10 Hail Marys, wash mouth out with soap), but with half the skill. He's a left-wing nitwit and most of the country knows it. I just hope he continues to contradict himself and express his far left wacko views to a country that is dying for an honest person who will put this country and its people first on the presidential agenda.

I would not vote for General Powell because he is a strong supporter of gun control. I'd vote for Condoleezza Wright in a hearbeat.

I agree that Obama is a liar, an elitist, and worst of all, a liberal internationalist.

[handirifle]

While i am truly sorry for the loss of your son, no matter whom the blame falls on, I have read this in scripture and will post it when I can find it. I agree with your Pastor on the free will issue, but this isn't about free will, it's about the will of God, causing rulers He's chosen for His purpose, whether that is to help usher in the end days or to point our nation in His predetermined direction.

I do firmly believe some things in Gods plan are not subject to OUR free will, otherwise we could will to NEVER have Armegeddon.

[Jaguarundi]

Obama is going to go from being no good to a Presidential thing...

Yeah,Hope floats like a T$$D !I plan to use my ballot box handle like a John Crapper (toilet) handle this fall....just flush !

[Jeeps]

"What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," Barack Obama said.

What exactly is "working" in Chicago???? Why do people listen when they are being lied to?

Every time "they" make it harder for the average citizen to purchase/own a firearm the crime rate goes up.

I'll tell ya what works, the 2nd amendment does. Ask any man that owns a firearm if he feels safer.

[hfcable]

He's not electable because he's a bad liar. He lies as much as Bill Clinton (say 10 Hail Marys, wash mouth out with soap), but with half the skill.

That is why I think you are wrong. Slick Willy was elected, then reelected. Even with the electorate knowing about him.

We have no good choices but I'm afraid there are too many people out there looking toward his promise of 'free' everything and will elect him.

People were dumb enough to fall for ol' Willie twice, I think they will again. I have little faith in people that are promised 'free' stuff.

44

but it is also easy to forget that billy bob clinton got only 43% of the vote, both times, and if it hadn't been for Big Ears Perot splitting the 57% of voters with Bush, it is extremely unlikely we would ever had had to suffer thru the clintonistas

[44LVR]

but it is also easy to forget that billy bob clinton got only 43% of the vote, both times, and if it hadn't been for Big Ears Perot splitting the 57% of voters with Bush, it is extremely unlikely we would ever had had to suffer thru the clintonistas

That is true and I've never forgotten that (though Bob Barr apparently has). But there were enough to elect him and reelect him. There may be that many fools (not all dumb people, but people easily fooled) to do it to us again

44