Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Jason Rolfe, Oct 24, 2008.
Can you give an example?
Obama on gun control: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
I guess it's just a question of interpretation then. I didn't see anything in that particular website that I would consider as disdain for the second amendment.
I think if you want to talk about disdain for the Bill of Rights during this election, the focus should be on the 4th through the 6th amendment and the 8th amendment.
It is lunacy to choose a president on gun rights alone.
Even if A president wanted to ban or restrict guns,
it just would never happen. There are just to many
guns around for any kind of control to be possible.
Gun control is the red herring that comes up every
election time. If you worry about the Government
coming to take your weapons away.....
I guess that says it all.
iagree completely! Just one of the standard talking points that comes up during the political season, especially for a Presidental election year. Although the damn election process takes way more than a damn year...
As someone who was living in Australia at the time of the Gun seizures I would respectfully suggest that this thought does not take in to account what a Party can do when they control the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of Government.
I would vote for Obama if the Republicans controlled the Congress but can not agree that any party should control both branches, ever.
Look at the mess Washington is in with one party control of the Govenor and the Legislature.
I completely agree but unfortunately there are many NRA fist pumping radicals that think that a ban on assult weapons or armor piercing bullets, somehow impairs their right to own guns for sportsmanship.:beathead::beathead:
A federal ban on guns would mean civil war with Texas, at the least. I don't think the feds are too willing to try that quite yet.
Now that is funny.
But it might. It will fit on an Pinto.
Pinto, an under-rated made in America elk carrier!
With regard to the point on intel reports and what the press tells us...two distinct places in reality. I once spend a summer stretch in the desert sands of Morocco, that is the official position. During that time though I think Momar would have considred my actual GPS coordinates well east of Morocco. Checking everything published, not a mention of Momar's beachfront porch, but some mason jars who were there with me would offer a slightly different story than published. No one's optics are so good as to see Momar's nose hairs from Morocco, at least not in those days. Maybe they are better now.
Why is that the only "programs" that are ever threatened to be cut, when they want to raise taxes, are the ones that affect the productive elements of society? Fire or police protection, education (although almost never higher education), parks, roads, extracurricular activities like music and sports, etc... are always the threatened "program".
If my tax bill never got cut by one dime I would be OK, but here is my bitch. These "social programs" are no damn different than slavery. They keep people TRAPPED in a cycle of poverty, illiteracy, fatherless families, crime, and drug and alcohol abuse ALL FOR THE GUARANTEE OF A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY. It steals from people the dignity and achievement of a productive life and isolates them in what is basically a third world country within our city borders. It says to people "you can't do it without us". How condescending.
I canceled my NRA membership two years ago because of the offensive marketing that went along with it. I would submit to you however that the framers of our constitution specificallywanted the citizenry to possess the most advanced weaponry of the day for the express purpose of keeping the government in check. It had nothing to do with sport what so ever. As a matter of fact the only element of society that hunted for sport in those days were the elite ruling class of country they had recently thrown from power. I somehow suspect these were the leading gun control advocates of the day.
If this makes me a "fist pumping radical", so be it. I find myself in good company.
the gun ban issue is, for me, one of the most serious since all the other rights are underpinned by the ability to restrain the government by force if necessary. Once you lose that ability, you're at the mercy of the ruling class. Obama's position is exposed in a recent article in the Washington Times. Feel free to check his voting record on this, and just because the NRA has the data on their website, does not make the data false. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/obama-and-guns/
I'm not a member of the NRA, but Gofish, if you think this is lunacy, you really want to think again. When I lived in Sacramento, I was forced to use my firearms FOUR TIMES to defend my family from idiots who robbed-at gunpoint-the local safeway, and felt my yard was a good place to hide out in. They were wrong. Fortunately, I never had to fire my weapon, but when we moved to a suburb north of Sac, we encountered a hopped up meth-head who attacked my wife with a chain. That time I did fire. The .45 Black Talon did it's job. If you think I don't require the ability to defend my home and family with lethal force if necessary, then you're welcome to interpose your head between my 5 foot two wife and the 3/4-inch thick chain this loser was swinging at her. And anybody who thinks this issue is about duck hunting isn't thinking it through, either. Remember, the US supreme court decided that cops have no duty to protect your person from attack. So for me, that's why it's one-not the only one, certainly-issue I've based my vote on. Obama lies when he says he supports the Second Amendment. I don't need a liar as a president: ANY liar. Except of course, a fisherman.
But enough political stuff! We're all polarized way too much, and civility's out the window. Get out and vote, gang. If you don't, then you have no right to complain! Now, that elk on the Pinto!! Wow!! Whoda thunk it??
Alex, my post regarding the impossibility of a gun
ban or restriction in America does not mean that
I am anti gun. I own guns. I shoot. Everyone in my
neighborhood owns guns. The possiblity of the Gov.
taking the guns away is NIL, NADA, ain't gonna happen,
ever. It is a right we enjoy in the USA. When Obama and
the Demos are in charge are they going door to door
asking "Can we have your guns please?" They better bring
a semi truck for my area of the world.
Oh Really?! Australia is probably the culture that most closely represents the liberties and standard of living we enjoy here in the US. Whether it will happen or not may be debatable, the fact that there is a powerful and very well funded effort that desires complete gun control is not.
I assure you they possess more than enough semi-trucks for your part of the world.
Hyperbole is frequently misused in political campaigns and often leads to emotionally charged allegations that are false. Alex, your statement "Obama lies when he says he supports the Second Amendment" is one such example.
In the Washington Times piece, the controversy is over whether Obama supported a statement concerning handgun sales and ownership from 12 years ago. As Fyrwood pointed out, our second amendment rights do not convey an unlimited right to bear whatever weapons we wish to own. There has been substantive debate over what is permissible under the second amendment and what is not for decades. I would submit that only crackpots would seriously assert that ownership of anti-tank guns, howitzers, and machine guns should be permitted and the courts have upheld bans on such weapons with little criticism. At the time of Obama's opposition to handguns, handgun ownership was a legitimate element of that debate that had nothing to do whatever with whether someone supports the second amendment or not. The first supreme court ruling that ever addressed this issue was just issued in June of this year.
Unlike our current president (and most of us in this debate, including me and you), Obama is well grounded in constitutional law, having taught it at a conservative law school for 12 years before going into politics. He understands the importance of judicial precedent in interpreting the constitution. When he says on the campaign trail today that he supports the second amendment, he understands that the recent supreme court ruling now becomes part of the basis for interpretation of the constitution. Therefore, I think it is unfair (whether you like it or not), to say that "Obama lies when he says he supports the second amendment."
I'm a gun owner and a former member of the NRA and it always shocks me how pumped up people can get over this issue. Virtually nothing has changed on this issue in my lifetime, which is becoming substantial, and nothing is on the horizon. There are many substantive issues that confront those of us who are law-abiding gun owners who use them for sport (hunting, at least, if not target and trap shooting). Many of these issues differentiate the policies of the major parties in our country. I think the second amendment arguments should be shelved so that we can address the really important ones, such as habitat restoration and many other environmental issues. Democrats typically advocate much more effectively and consistently for these issues.
Sorry Richard, you misquote me here, as I do in fact believe the 2nd amendment does convey unlimited gun ownership rights to the individual citizen. If you study the history of correspondence surrounding the writing of the Bill of Rights you will see that was in fact the intent of the framers.
As for Obama having taught constitutional law, that is somewhat of a red herring as he has repeatedly re characterized downward his original assertion that he was a professor of constitutional law. He taught a single class on the subject. In today's public education that may qualify him as an expert but hardly makes him an authority.
The facts are clear that Mr. Obama has lied about a great number of very important facts and is utterly untrustworthy in my opinion.
The fact is, each and every one of us has lied, or changed our minds, or re-considered something based on life's experience. Me included.
If you or I believe that Obama, or Mccain, or Bush, or anyone else, is to be disqualified from our consideration for public office, that's our right. Considering what we "seem" to expect from our leaders, and the scrutiny we put them under, it's a wonder that any decent human being would ever want to submit to the process.
Myself, I'll always put a lot more confidence in a leader, or anyone else, who's willing to listen to all the available information, discern what's relevant, and then make the best possible decision. If new information comes along and an adjustment is needed, an intelligent person makes an adjustment and perhaps a different decision. What more can you ask from anyone?
I would GUESS that one reason that the NRA has turned up the heat on Obama is that he is not on record as being a sportsman, and thus (to some people) can't possibly be sympathetic about or a reliable supporter of "gun rights." If so, that's simplistic and ridiculous. I've never executed anyone, never lost a loved one to violent crime, and yet I feel I have a very sound opinion about capital punishment (pro, by the way). By the logic I'm GUESSING the NRA is applying to Obama, he can't be trusted on the capital punishment issue, either, and neither can I.
And please pay attention to the emphasis I put on the word "guess." I don't waste my time scrutinizing NRA documentation or that of any other special-interest group that would presume to tell me what to think. So, I'm not well informed as to the motivation of the NRA relative to Obama, nor do I care, but I'll admit my ignorance in advance and save everyone else the trouble.
Like my tag line says, the Prover proves what the Thinker thinks. Now, as some one or perhaps many others suggested in this thread, let's get out and cast our votes, and then get ready for the real work, because true democracy doesn't stop there. :thumb:
Fyrwood, I'm sorry, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. Perhaps I read too much into your post that you understood that the interpretation of second amendment has long since restricted what sorts of weapons individuals may own, even if you disagree with that interpretation.
With all due respect, your opinion of what the framers of the constitution thought when writing the second amendment isn't worth any more than mine is and carries the same legal weight. In fact, whether the second amendment even permitted gun ownership outside of the constraints of "a well-regulated militia" has been subject of valid legal disagreement until the recent supreme court ruling.
As for his teaching at U Chicago, his record indicates that he taught for 12 years, including three classes per year, one of them in "due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law." The way you put it makes sound that he taught this class only once (even if he did, it would suggest a greater understanding of constitutional law than any or the other candidates or anyone on this forum). Many university professors teach the same class year after year precisely because they are the authority on that subject. His title while at the U Chicago was "Senior Lecturer," because it was not a tenured position. He has been criticized for using the title "Professor," which often has a narrower technical definition, but even the U Chicago Law School accepts that title as a valid one for Senior Lecturers (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html).
I'm a skeptic, even a cynic, when it comes to the motivations and believability of our leadership in goverment in general, but our current president has elevated that cynicism to a new level; "utterly untrustworthy" seems an appropriate description. However, I find Obama and McCain refreshingly honest by comparison, despite the campaign rhetoric. This gives me some hope. Sadly, comments like yours about Obama tend to mitigate against hope for the future, because they betray an unwillingness or disinterest in objectivity. Hopefully, your response is one generated by the heat of the current political climate and you will give whoever is our next president the benefit of fair treatment as well as critical scrutiny.