I like it - it is so true.

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.

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.

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.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COAMCY

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4ew09eoeQ&NR=1

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.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b83zgbRnrFs

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1225nKhhq-A

Here is Mitt Romney on Gun Control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po&feature=related

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Proved it? Please. The article proved that he hemmed and hawed until the decision came down.

Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just the “well regulated militia” in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local “common sense” restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.

That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy.

[...]Obama’s dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton’s) an “F.”

The article proved that he avoids answering a subject (now that he is trying to move to the center) until the decision comes in. His history has shown him to be a liberal “take them guns” type of guy, and he has done nothing to disprove that.

We all get that you lube yourself some Obama….we get it. But the spin your spinning just makes you look foolish. Mata has been owning you from the start and your constant attempts to paint Obama as some kind of pro-gun rights guy is just downright embarrassing.

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…