The Obama Flip-Flop Continues On Gun Bans

Loading

Every flippin day we get more evidence that Obama is the worst flip-flopper to have come along in some time. He anticipated the SCOTUS ruling today in opposition to gun bans and put this out:

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

Puhlease. “Inartful?” Either you believe the ban was constitutional or not. Simple question. His spokesperson said he did believe it was constitutional and he never corrected this statement until the day of the decision. Lets not forget how he answered the same kind of question in 1996:

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

And how can we forget the bitter folks statement he made. But not anymore. Now he isn’t sure until the decision comes out, all the earlier statements he made on the decision were inartful ya see…

Talk about politics as usual.

As Jim Geraghty said:

All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.

And Ed Morrissey notes Obama’s supposed expertise:

Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign’s statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert. One might expect the “inartful” excuse on wetlands reclamation or some other esoteric matter of public policy, but the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard. One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong.

McCain wasted no time to attack:

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

Your damn right these bans have infringed on our rights and this opinion looks like it goes much farther then even I thought they would go. Specifically putting handguns, instead of just guns, into the decision:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Awesome!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Geraghty is so right on!

Geraghty…WHAT a perfect sentiment….they do have an expiration date! And no warranty! (well, that’s a GOOD thing, I guess…Except they’ll have warranties if he’s elected. horrors

Don’t y’all think Trent Lott was just ‘inartful’ in his Strom Thurmond comment? sure he was. But, he’s not a liberal.

Obama is changing his story before being called on it. Everyone knew how Kennedy would rule from the way he talked to the gun banning lawyers. This will probably be his new tactic. To change his mind when the odds are against him. To throw everyone under the bus before it is necessary to do so. At the rate he is going will there be anyone left? It may be that at the convention the dims might take the nomination away from him because of his unelectability and give it to Clinton. Sometimes I wonder if this was the plan all the time in order to make her more electable. Underdog you know.. Sympathy. What you see is rarely what you get. Dims are sneaky.

Fit Fit,

Nice link to Kos, except no one bothers to ever take the time to even browse the record. McCain submitted an amendment to that bill along with dozens of other senators. MCCAIN AMENDMENT NO. 333 — (Senate – May 12, 1999) I’ll leave it to you to find and read the Bill and amendments.

(Added: Not to mention, if you read the text of this massive bill, there is so much crap given to schools, families, teachers, indoctrination programs there is no telling what the cost of this bill would be. Why can’t they write a bill for what a bill is for? Change, yeah, I’m all for it. Let’s get rid of every last one of them.)

I can’t post, so I’ll tip:

Hindu Monkey God Hanuman Endorses Obama

NEW DELHI: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama can now expect help from an unexpected quarter — Lord Hanuman.

All-India Congress Committee member Brij Mohan Bhama has organised a 11-day religious ceremony at Karol Bagh here for his success in the U.S. elections.

The idea of sending an idol of Hanuman dawned on him after friends in the United States mentioned a “prominent American politician who carried a miniature Hanuman idol in his pocket for luck,” Mr. Bhama said speaking on the first day of the ceremony on Tuesday.

The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms.

Obama has carried a small gold statue of the Monkey King, revered in India because Hindus believe monkeys are descendants of the monkey god, Hanuman.

“Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him,” said Bhama.

Just for the record.

Robert Novak before the 2nd Amendment decision had already discussed BHO’s position.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html

The basis for this flip flop attack has been totally undercut by his column. And we all know that Robert Novak is no friend of BHO.

I know that some in the MSM want to put people in certain boxes. Liberal vs. Conservative. Straight Talk vs. Flip-Flopper etc.

However, in this instance, he may not be the flipper that some try to make him out to be.

His position has been nuanced, continues to be, and as it should be.

We have to find some way to balance the right of individuals to have and own guns (for sport and defense) vs. the desire to reduce the number of young children who get shot on the playground from stray bullets*.

This is the urban vs. rural dilemma. Nobody wants to give away their rights for anything, but if you live in a congested urban area. You have try to find that balance.

SCOTUS and BHO said the same thing.

[I know that the individuals who are probably doing the shooting have the guns illegally. However, when everyone has a gun and the gun dealer or rival gangbanger starts shooting everyone in the area is in danger. (BTW, these thugs are normally lousy shots.)]

Inartful indeed. Why is it that Obama can’t seem to employ good help, there goes that pesky staff thingy again.

2007

“. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

1996

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

After reading Novak’s column, it appears to me that Obama made sure while campaigning in Iowa and Wisconsin he managed to appease his constituency without donning the the carhart and flannel shirt to go duck hunting. His nuanced stance based on his previous comments as to whether he agrees that gun bans are constitutional, are as clear as mud.

I am happy that at least Curt has recognized that he did not flip-flop.


Ok, so he didn’t flip-flop…he danced instead.

His position has been nuanced, continues to be, and as it should be.

That’s a start. Whether we like him or not, let’s deal with the best facts that we have. (Whether we will get absolute truth from either candidate–I truly dispute. — Remember, while some place them on a higher pedestal that us, they are truly just human.

However, people don’t want “nuanced” positions, but unless you just got here from the womb. Then you know, life is not black and white. I wish it were.

For example, while I abhor abortions and believe in life. I would be very hard for me to want my daughter to raise the daughter of someone who raped her–very hard. In fact, it would be very hard to keep me from killing that rapist, but I believe in Life and I am a Christian. I know that it’s a stark case, but life is full of them.

My point is that you don’t have to take guns out of peoples hands without understanding that you can and should restrict gun possession in very crowded urban settings. That everyone should have the right to defend themselves, but also they subrogate those rights to law enforcement in certain settings for the greater good.

For example, while you have free speech, your rights are limited in a crowded movie theater, airport, or airplane.

Some people call it compromise in a free society. (They want to take away my XX Amendment Rights) I call it common sense in a complex society.

Some of you may not like BHO. I certainly have my doubts, but I am not voting with my eyes closed for either of them.

We already did that. And whether we agree with the war or not, there have been many issues that have been handle very poorly. I helped give one party the full power of the government (legislative, judicial, and executive) for six years. And what did they do with it.

Everyone talks about experience, but what did that experience get us. These are the sad facts that we have to confront. No matter who we vote for. Demonizing either candidate for political purposes will not get us, a government that works.

(I am not suggesting that Curt was demonizing anyone, just talking about the general political climate of false charges, misinformation for political gain, and the fake outrage that we have seen from both sides regarding race, age, religion, sex, and a variety of issues.)

Ohhh…foul…so now I am a socialist…if I were inclined to start a fight, I would just let you know that I am a Christian and lead you to the book of Acts, Ephesians, Corinthians, and all of the Gospels to the words of Christ and the apostles regarding our duty to each other and our collective responsibility…then I would suggest that perhaps that you needed to spend time in your bible and at your church not on a blog…but I don’t want to fight.

I truly believe (at this point that socialist comment not withstanding) that SCOTUS, Obama, you, and I agree that guns for personal safety are appropriate.

The only place we disagree is that those rights are limited by reasonable measures and it certain circumstances.

BHO understands that and I think that you understand it too.

Even George Will

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603651.html

has stated:

Obama benefits from this decision. Although he formerly supported groups promoting a collectivist interpretation — nullification, really — of the Second Amendment, as a presidential candidate he has prudently endorsed the “individual right” interpretation.

And of course, like Bob Novak, George Will is not friend of BHO.

None of our rights are absolute. Not one. We have always have had to come together for the greater good. So despite all of the fan fare about capitalism that is used to divide us (and as a small business owner, I am a capitalist) from the beginning of this Grand republic, we have had to try to balance our individual rights vs. our collective responsibility to each other.

No more is that more evident that with our military, police, firemen, and garbage collectors. Do they get paid what they are worth? When men die in Iraq, is that lousy military payment fair compensation for the life they have given? Is that the market price? No. And we know this because we pay contractors $100K+ to help fight the battle.

Our brave men die for all of our freedoms.

They believe in our collectivism. That you so rudely toss aside.

BHO also recognizes that we are greater when we work together as one celebrating and protecting our individualism and collectivism simultaneously.

But don’t believe B. Hussein Obama, because he is a unpatriotic secret arrogant muslim criminal elitist b–stard who hates the “typical white person” and is the Manchurian candidate brought to enslave the white race and turn us all over to Al-Quaeda…oh and “did I mention he was black”.

Believe the Apostle Paul who wrote:

“That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” 1 Corinthians 12:25-26

And if you don’t like Paul, what about Jesus:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36-40

I guess Jesus was a socialist too. (Actually, he wasn’t, but neither am I or BHO!)

(Just so that you don’t try this, BHO is not the messiah, remember he’s muslim)

Unbelievable… I have to repeat this from, JFTR #9 just to make sure I read it right.

We have to find some way to balance the right of individuals to have and own guns (for sport and defense) vs. the desire to reduce the number of young children who get shot on the playground from stray bullets*.

This is the urban vs. rural dilemma. Nobody wants to give away their rights for anything, but if you live in a congested urban area. You have try to find that balance.

You equate the abuse of free speech (such as deliberately inciting panic) with the “crowd” size? Not hardly. You could be in an open air market with two other people, and still be nailed for abuse of 1st amendment rights. Has nothing to do with “crowd”. It has to do with “intent”.

You are, in short, advocating a different application of a Constitutional right – not based on abuse, but based merely on where a citizen lives, and how dense the population is. Unbelievable.

Want to reduce the amount of children who get shot? An armed society is a polite society. There is less shooting done with the perp knows he’s not facing unarmed targets. Criminals notoriously go for easy pickings. You think they are as apt to run roughshod in armed and able “neighborhood watch” areas?

As to the “crowd” theory, it doesn’t have to be a crowded playground for a stray bullet to kill. A fool shooting up in the air on a holiday can result in the death of injury of a lone child, playing in his back yard.

The solution is allowing the RKBA to be used, as the framers intended, and training kids to use and respect firearms. Most accidents, injuries and deaths are not drive by shootings… they are kids who play with guns without knowing how to handle them. Education and respect for the weapon and the lives it can take… plain and simple.

There was a time when kids knew about firearms. They hunted, and saw death. They engaged in firearm sports to increase not only accuracy, but quick judgment on what is and isn’t a target (ala action pistol/cowboy pistol). They also knew how to protect themselves and family if necessary. Springfield, OR’s school shooting was halted by a couple of kids trained in using firearms. It’s a smaller OR town adjacent to Eugene. Perhaps this is why you are willing to not question the RKBA right to rural citizens, but willing to deny that right to urban denizens.

However the very fact you view a Constitutional right in that fashion just makes my blood run cold.

“collective responsibility” freely given is charity, of which this country practices often.

“collective responsibilty” mandated by government is socialism, and denial of rights.

Learn the difference, JFTR

MataHaley,

Argue with SCOTUS. It’s amazing that the most conservative supreme court in 50 years sees it as BHO and I do, but you in your infinite wisdom see it differently. Scalia sees it like BHO. Thomas sees it like BHO. Both of the justices appointed by GWB sees it like BHO and I. They recognize states and cities right to limit the constutional rights of American for the collective good.

Unfortunately facts are dangerous things for some, but just for kicks, here is what the SCOTUS actually said:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Are all of the constitutional scholars in the majority who we pay for life to study the constitution and to understand the intent of the founders, not just what Hannity says on Fox News (who is sometimes right, but clearly not God in everything he says), just dupes for the left? Scalia a dupe for the vast left wing MSM conspiracy. What about Thomas

Does Scalia make your blood run cold? He agrees with BHO (at least on this issue). I am certainly sorry that I do.

I know that we have been told to hate Obama. He is just an empty suit. He is an unpatriotic secret arrogant muslim criminal elitist b–stard who hates the “typical white person” and is the Manchurian candidate brought to enslave the white race and turn us all over to Al-Quaeda…oh and “did I mention he was black”. Oh and by the way, we just learn to day that he is a baby killer.

It’s amazing that I have to make this case, because I don’t support BHO necessarily. I want to keep my mind open for our best chance to make a difference for the issues I believe in.

In this case, he was right. He not always right. Maybe he is not quite the left wing zealot as many of our friends who want to stay in power after running our country into a ditch want us believe.

At least, Scalia agrees him this time.

Mata,

Just for the record.

Our country was founded on collective responsibility. It wasn’t charity. Collective responsibility was was necessary for survival.

It is necessary today. We depend on each other. Without collective responsibility, we would be speaking The Kings English, Spanish, Russian, German or Japanese.

When our men and women were drafted in the war, it wasn’t charity. Do you truly believe that they all wanted to go?

Without collective responsibility insurance funds would not exist, we all contribute individually to hedge risks collectively. We do the same with our military, police forces, fire protection, education, etc.

I know that that the kool-aide taste good that suggest that we all rose up by our boot straps and depended on our own knowledge to make great decisions for ourselves. We’re pretty smart, but there are a lot of things that we individual don’t know and can’t know. We have to work together. Very few of us could pay individually for all that we receive collectively. How do you think the highways, airports, and rail systems got built. We need both market forces and social safety nets. We need capitalism and government mandated innovation and protections.

We contribute a portion of our resources to government so that our elected representatives can focus resources toward our greatest needs. It does not always work due to corruption, mismanagement and a variety of other factors, but who do you think pays for the clean-up in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Who pays for basic scientific advancement when profit is not yet evident.

Who educates the future leaders of tomorrow who show no promise today, but create the innovations of tomorrow. We do. We pay collectively for the greater good. It is not charity, it’s survival.

Argue with SCOTUS. It’s amazing that the most conservative supreme court in 50 years sees it as BHO and I do, but you in your infinite wisdom see it differently. Scalia sees it like BHO. Thomas sees it like BHO. Both of the justices appointed by GWB sees it like BHO and I. They recognize states and cities right to limit the constutional rights of American for the collective good.

If you think Scalia sees it as you and your “urban v rural” suggestion, you are so clueless you are not worth the time it took to type this response. I’ve read every damn page and footnote. I have highlighed bookmarks in my saved PDF copy.

But I’ll give it one, and only one effort… choosing the most simple, overt and obvious flaw to your delusions…. as it’s obvious you are incapable of much more.

There’s nothing “Constitutional” about your suggested urban v rural presentation, JFTR. Absorb one simple fact. The SCOTUS determined that… in an URBAN area of D of C… banning of hand guns, or possession of hand guns in that urban area that were mandated to be rendered inoperable via trigger locks or disassembly was UN CON STI TUTIONAL!!!

Heller in a nutshell. Period. I rest my case on Scalia’s words.. not BHOs as mis’translated by the latest journalist wannabe and you.

WHERE’S THE BLOODY FLYSWATTERS TODAY, GUYS! Da human gnats are a’swarming big time!

added… founded on “collective” mandated “responsibility”, my ass…. Try again.

Mata,

Just for the record.

Now you’re screaming. You don’t have to respond. You want help from others on the blog–is that collective responsibility that you request?? The bottom line is though, there is no help to come. You’re in over your head, but I would imagine that it occurs quite often for you. I eat you with facts. You attack me with insults. You want people to just agree with your bias view of the facts no matter what the SCOTUS actually wrote.

If the opinion is different than I quote then show it so. Prove it, you said you read the opinion. You said you footnoted it. Did you not find the quote as I have shown? Or are you violating God’s commandment number 9, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness…”

Here is the quote again, Just for the record:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Robert Novak said that was BHO’s position, before the SCOTUS decision :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html

And Just for the record, DC’s ban was excessive. But that is not the topic. DC has made terrible decisions in the past. They even elected a crack head twice as mayor. So, it is no wonder that they would have inane policies.

So don’t try to turn the point. You see you can’t get me, because I am not a left wing loon, but I am not a Fox News kool-aide drinker either. You however need to wipe your mouth, your kool-aide mustache is showing. If you need a tissue, I will forward it to you, just because I am my brother’s keeper. Ya know, that collective responsibility stuff. Whether it’s charity, socialism, or just plain Christian, you make the call.

That’s going to leave a mark.

You really are limited, aren’t you, JFTR

SCOTUS opinion are based on a specific case with specific people in a specific argument. These opinions then form precedents that allow others to use in ensuing court battles.

First, the decision based on Heller… simple, no nonsense so even an amoeba like you can grasp it.

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.[pg 67]

As I said, Heller in a nutshell. Then again, forgot I was dealing with a nut without a shell in you. So let me ‘splain in simple terms what you pull out of context in the decision as was used for reasoning (in other areas you choose not to read) to come to a conclusion that you choose to ignore.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: [pg 57]

The “for whatever purpose” means was defined as those purposes that are abusing the right (i.e. convicted felons, but even they have partial to full rights restored in some instances). Self defense has already been sanctioned in this same opinion as an intended use. [pg 30 thru….]

INRE the “any weapon” part, Scalia and the dissenting justices believe that the *type* of weaponry may be regulated to what is “common use”. Hand guns are common use self defense weapons. [pg 60]

Whether AK-47s, or even the M-16s will be determined as “common use” will be determined in future lawsuits that your sorry ass will witness, and again misinterpret. For you see, “common use” in colonial times is different than common use today. M-16s are common to our veterans and “militia” today.

This opens up a whole new ball of wax, as is noted by Scalia in parts of the 157 pg decision you chose not to read, or could not comprehend.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machine guns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. [pg 55]

DOH! Missed the fact that Scalia knew he was opening a gateway of litigation on a plethora of issues, eh? But then, this lawsuit was filed in 2001… it’s taken over six years to get an opinion on the 2A.. the first in history, as they’ve avoided it like the plague.

Well, get used to it. Heller ruled that while some limited restrictions apply, those limitations apply to those that abuse the 2A (i.e [pg 62] felons who do not get their 2A rights reinstated, challengable [pg 60]), or for the type of weapons they may possess. And even that is up for challenge now based on “common use” weaponry then vs now.

Self defense is not only applicable in the home. Scalia’s attempt to not nullilfy current bans in specific places in Heller was expected. As he says in the first sentence of the same paragraph you so love parrot, it was not an “exhaustive historical analysis”. That “self defense” and Constitutional rights stop at specific places and boundaries is a debate you can expect to see in the courts. If it can be argued, under a certain circumstance in future cases, that the ban on common use weapons near a school infringed on a citizens 2A right for self-defense, there may very well be exceptions added to a blanket rule.

But instead you rest comfortable in your absolutes, forgetting that slavery too was an absolute with the courts once upon a time.

Top it all off that you manage to make some fabled leap from current school bans – now up for challenge as where “self defense” begins and ends – to urban v rural, and I have to say my original assessment of you being clueless still stands.

Over my head? Bubba… you don’t even know you’re drowning in the kiddie pool.

Now you’re screaming. You don’t have to respond.

Then how would you learn anything?

That’s going to leave a mark.

…only in your dreams, DW. But apparently you found a peer in the gene pool with JFTR

Isn’t it funny that the libs want to take away the guns from law abiding citizens yet they don’t want to imprison the criminals who are the ones committing the gun violence?

How many times have we seen the lefties protest for the release of some cop killer?

Guns don’t kill people. Liberals kill people!

…And the spittle is a-flyin’ tonight. Mike must be off his Ritalin.

Mata,

Just For The Record

Wow! We actually agree…with the plain text language of the SCOTUS opinion. It’s amazing facts are a stubborn thing. But it is equally amazing that you would actually show everyone that your former point has no basis in fact. (I guess maybe you had not read the opinion before. Or maybe you needed an insulin shot from drinking too much kool-aide and your vison was blurry. Or maybe you read well like BHO speaks, but your comprehension is a bit remedial. But that’s okay, you are one of God’s children and I bear you no ill will.)

I stated that BHO had the same position as SCOTUS and that it wasn’t quite the flip flop that many suggested, because he had that position before the SCOTUS released their opinion. Then I proved it with an article from Novak.

I suggested innocently that the plain language of the SCOTUS opinion suggested that there was a balancing act required between individual rights and collective responsibility–the 2A recognized an individual right to bear arms and the rights of cities and states to limit those rights. Then I prove it:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

You went on to call me everything, but a child of God.

I asked you for your proof.

And you retort:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

How is it possible to disqualify Heller from the exercise of Second Amendment rights if there are not limits on such rights?

This is the majority opinion. This is Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc. and just for the record, BHO, me, and I guess now you.

You go on to quote the opinion as stating:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

What? No! WTF, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited” It’s not? Who ever wrote that must be socialist. The SCOTUS must have Ralph Nader writing opinions, because every cold blooded kool aide drinker knows that the 2A is an absolute right and anyone who suggest different like Scalia or BHO are socialist and maybe even communist or even worse “The most liberal senator in Washington” or “The most liberal candidate for president ever”.

Even you…yes, even you write:

Heller ruled that while some limited restrictions apply, those limitation apply to those that abuse the 2A (i.e felons who do not get their 2A rights reinstated),

Really! No…Say it isn’t so even you…even you a socialist liberal. How is that possible, because just several post ago there were no limitations on the 2A and even the suggestion that I “view a Constitutional right in that fashion just makes [your] blood run cold.”
Blog #15

And even though you now admit that there might be some restrictions for the common good, you conveniently leave out the part of the opinon that states:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

I wonder why…that wouldn’t be “false witness” I read, would it. That’s truly the Fox News, MSM, and talk radio way. They tell half the truth to get us busy capitalist excited with some ginned up fake outrage for their own personal agenda.

Now Mata, Just For The Record, I forgive you. There is no hate here. We need you to help take back this great country. If I insult you too much, you might hold a grudge and might get a bit bitter and cling to your gun as you are weaned off the sauce you’re sipping. I am pretty sure that there are 2A limits about using a fire arm while intoxicated or delusional (that pesky un con sti tu tion al mental illness probihition that Scalia talks about).

Oh, btw, while I forgive you there is that important personal responsibility issue that needs to be dealt with. And you have watsed a lot of my time with no real valid argument, there is a price to pay for that so I revoke your blog pass and I will see you in detention on Monday for 1 hour at 3:00pm. And since I believe in both, of course, personal and collective responsibility (as any Christian that reads the bible would), you are certainly invited to class on Wednesday at 5:30pm for another lesson in the Constitution and our Great Land…well, better yet, you might want to come an hour or so sooner for some remedial work.

In your own post

First off, I have never addressed your BHO bit. So don’t drag me into the “he believes, he doesn’t believe” bit. That battle may be with Curt.

My issue with you is your some people get 2A rights, and others don’t, based on population density and your perceived “for the collective good” crap.

Disqualified from 2nd Amendment rights are those that are felons without their full rights restored. And I never said there wasn’t limitations via precedents. If I did, I would be extreme libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist.

But those limitations are defined, as Scalia ruled…. types of weapons, and police power/States provisions that *do not infringe* on the RKBA by an individual that is not disqualified by abusing the right and not having those rights reinstated (i.e. criminal). Gawd, you’re so dense….’

That’s it. That’s the extent of it. Now everything else is up for grabs via future lawsuits. Daly’s already digging in, knowing Chicago is next.

Your urban v rural wouldn’t come close to being Constititional… just as Heller’s right to possess an operable handgun in D of C was absolutely within his rights.

And you, who can only quote two phrases and assume this is the whole enchilda, are just not capable of grasping the entire ramification of this decision. You foolishly believe this helps you grab more guns and make more regulations as absurd you suggest.

It will only be a matter of time before you realize you are now on the defense, and the tables have turned. Your days of eroding RKBA Constitutional rights in the name of “collective responsibility” have taken a massive right to the solar plex. And you’re so oblivious to the rule of law, that you haven’t a clue. Oh my….

As I said.. rest easy. Slavery too was once a law.

BTW, “cute” does not become you…

Mata,

I thought I took your blog pass. Somebody get a hall monitor.

Just for the record, you continue to leave out the second part:

… or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

Why?

And for the record, you leave out the disclaimer in front of all of it…

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt…

You may wish to cut and paste from a more thorough “collective” source.

You must be one of Obama’s younger cyber hit squad members to know so little of how court opinions begats waves of new challenges. Specific limitations were not scrutinized in this case, as Scalia’s plainly said with his opening disclaimer. Thus your joy in banning Constitutional rights in “sensitive places” for “the collective good” (as you like to say) is premature.

The notion that the Constitutional right of self-defense, most definitely decided in this case, has boundaries and is only applicable in the home, will not hold up well under scrutiny in a case specifically addressing that issue. Indeed teachers, students and relatives of those killed in campus slayings may argue that point quite effectively now. They were disarmed by people like you. Some have paid the ultimate price for self-defense having boundaries at “sensitive places”. Yes, I can see this going away in time.

You are delusional in your perceptions of “victory” in this opinion, as you are delusional in your faith of His Messiahship. But hey, free country. You’ll learn your lessons soon enough. But, as I said, even slavery was legal with the court once.

But beware.. when you believe the 2A has boundaries and borders to “sensitive places”, you will find your 1A follows suit quickly.

BTW, as I said, “cute” does not become you. You’re a tad old to be precocious. Thereby, you should be happy that, as an FA author, I do not believe… like you… that your rights stop at “sensitive places”. For in this instance, I *am* your hall monitor, and I have given you the pass instead of deleting you as spam this entire thread.

However Curt’s the head honcho. If he tires of you, that’s his call. He may or may not be as patient as I with those mentally challenged by the opinion.

Mata,

Just for the record.

You talk about the future, but who knows what the court is going to be in the future.

I talked about today as the decision sits. Maybe you have special powers not available to much of the rest of society.

Maybe you are a time traveler, good luck with that.

If you are, I take back everything I said about you and can you let me know if the Patriots are going to win the Superbowl or the Lakers the NBA Finals.

And of course, if you do have special powers as a time traveler, you probably knew I was going to say that.

If you don’t have any special powers, then you are still suspended. And I will see you next week at the remedial class, be sure to bring an apple for the teacher.

Curt and Mata,

I am not looking to bash Obama or McCain nor suck up to them. I just want to be able to make decisions with my eyes open, not just repeat talking points from either campaign.

We have an opportunity in this great internet age to get even more information about the candidates than ever before, but we have to be diligent and not just be spoon fed.

I think most people can see that regulations might vary depending on the location and populations. I don’t see why that’s so controversial. It’s not that the 2A changes, but the limitations on the 2A may change depending on the location (which includes the population).

And Curt, you asked for proof that it wasn’t a flip-flop by Obama.

I had personally heard Obama speak about the individual rights of gun owners, so it was a surpise to me that he was getting bashed on it. It was like that youtube did not exist. (I know that its fashionable to be outraged at McCain or Obama on nearly everything based on a persons party affiliation.)

However, I have your proof below. Some might try to mischaracterize it. There are many from each party that believes any words that come out of the other candidates mouths are lies, but you asked for evidence.

I have provided multiple clips. For a variety of politicians, but especially Obama. It’s interesting that McCain also has a nuanced position on guns, but we don’t hear about that. That is why we have to do our own research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fl28DjKrgQ

The person that even put out the video calls it a flip flop.

But if you listen to what Obama said, it is not.

But also Rudy Guiliani stated the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA317hBSv0c

Here is another Obama clip on Gun ownership:

Here is a more nuanced position by Senator McCain on guns (He believes in an individual right, but he also believes in background checks and other common good measures to limit second amendment rights. He claims the NRA agrees with him, but they do not support background checks at gun shows for example.)

Here is another from McCain on Assualt Weapons where he seems to have supported it, but with Outdoor life he says perhaps not, but maybe

Here is Mitt Romney on Gun Control

Clinton and Obama PA Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjbLX3MkElE&feature=related

JFTR said: “I am not looking to bash Obama or McCain nor suck up to them. I just want to be able to make decisions with my eyes open, not just repeat talking points from either campaign.” Then he, or is it she? goes on to follow the Obama party line exactly.

Talk about “distractions?” I saw everything but Hillary’s kitchen sink tossed into those comments above.

Clearly Obama is sensitive on this issue. and since JFTR admits to sipping the Obama Kool Aid at one of those mass hypnosis rallies Goebels Obama is famous for, I am not surprised.

Here is a more nuanced position by Senator McCain on guns (He believes in an individual right, but he also believes in background checks and other common good measures to limit second amendment rights.He claims the NRA agrees with him, but they do not support background checks at gun shows for example.

Wades ass deep into unknown waters, this one. Now we’re getting lectures from him about the NRA, based on his media education.

There is already background checks at gun shows and has been for years. The latest Lautenberg assault on Constitutional rights is not a “gun show loophole” as advertised to the gullible. It’s a data collection scheme on every attendee to gun shows (broadly and vaguely defined), plus the ability for the FBI to keep background checks that pass for 90 days… i.e. an invasion of privacy.

But the JFTRs of the world walk around in a cerebral fog – willing to give away rights they don’t care about as “reasonable” until it’s a right they *do* care about. You see, it’s okay for Constitutional rights to stop at “sensitive places” to him for the RKBA, and it’s up to him and the masses to decide what is a “sensitive place”.

And what if the masses decided that a BHO rally was a “sensitive place” – a possible gathering of people including Hamas, the New Black Panther Party, Socialist and Communist party members, and Bill Ayer’s upcoming domestic terrorist proteges. Using the S 2577 concept, JFTR and buds need to sign a ledger upon entry with their personal information. That ledger must be retained by the rally promotor forever, and offered up for federal inspection upon every demand. All because some of these citizens *may* be up to no good.

But, ya know, it was a “sensitive place”, and we supposedly accept that Constitutional rights stop where a “sensitive place” starts.

I suspect the JFTR’s of the world would be screaming “foul” and “facist” at the top of their lungs. And they’d be absolutely right… But they would never equate what they believe is an obvious injustice to BHO rally attendees to their own demands for gun owners. Such is an example of perspective by narcissists… never understanding that when the RKBA becomes so diluted as to be non-existent, the rest of our Constitutional rights will do the same.

Check your free speech at the door, please. This is a “sensitive place”, and only unity is allowed.

Boy, I guess Mata work up on the wrong side of the bed.

I guess you didn’t see the video where McCain stated that he was for an assault weapons ban but know that he is sitting in front of Outdoorsmen magazine he not for it so much any more. He makes these statements all in the same clip.

Lighten up, I know that you were a bit bruised yesterday. But I want peace.

Salute to you all.

And,

Just For The Record

I have never been to a BHO rally. I saw it on TV. Maybe that still makes me hypnotized.

I am an independent and drink kool-aide from both cups, but I have a fool proof detox plan called research and a healthy skepticism for anyone willing (stupid) enough to run for President.

I wanted Huck and like Buchanan for trade and immigration. And would probably vote for McCain, but his immigration views very similar to BHOs.

More than kool-aide, I just often need a stiff drink.

This just appeared on Amazon.com

I like it – it is so true.