I'm curious about our presidential candidates and their stance on the 2nd Amendment. All 3 claim to believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to own guns, but their words sometimes say anything but.
I'm not thrilled by the prospect of John McCain being in the Oval Office with the authority to sign any gun control bill that a Democratic-controlled Congress sends to his desk. But at least McCain says at the moment that he rejects any notion of gun control. So forget him for a moment; let's focus on those other 2 rascals: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
These 2 really confuse me.
Take Obama for a moment. In February, he told reporters at a press conference that "There is an individual right to bear arms."
Good. He gets it. Or does he? In the same sentence he added, "But it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulations."
Maybe. But I'm starting to think he doesn't get it, after all. Just so Obama gets it, let's refresh our memory on what the 2nd Amendment actually says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Shall not. It doesn't say "Shall not unless . . ." or "Shall not but . . ." It says "Shall not." Seems pretty open and shut to me.
But back to that common-sense regulation Obama speaks of. He says: "I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws. The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington D.C."
So the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington (the latter of which has been ruled unconstitutional by a court, let's not forget) are okay? Should their be any doubt, Obama does believe the Washington handgun ban is constitutional.
So in one breath Obama tells us that there is an individual right to own guns, and in the very next breath he says that a city can say that its residents DON'T have a right to own guns.
WTH? Am I the only one confused here? Do we or don't we have the right to own guns? Is he saying this with a straight face?
And then he says: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws . . . isn't borne out by our Constitution."
WTH x2? Isn't it? That "Shall not be infringed" part comes to mind again. When Washington decided its residents could not own handguns, their right to keep and bear arms was certainly infringed. And as far as what is or isn't borne out by the Constitution, Article VI seems pretty clear to me: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I don't know how much clearer it could be than that. If the Constitution guarantees the right of people to own guns "” and, so far, the Supreme Court hasn't disagreed with that notion, and even Obama agrees with it "” no state can make a law to the contrary.
And as for Obama's implied interpretation that cities can override the Constitution on the 2nd Amendment, how many other Constitutional rights can be overridden by the states? None other. Obama believes that women have the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or abort it, and the courts agree with him. Does he think it's okay for a city or state to override that right? I hardly think so. Obama surely believes that we're guaranteed the right to freedom of, or from, religion, and the courts agree with that, too. Does he think it's okay for a city or state to override that right? I hardly think so.
Who does he think he's kidding?
And let's not forget that now infamous 1996 questionaire, where Obama said that handguns should be banned completely; no more can be manufactured, no more can be sold, no more can be owned. Of course, the last word from Obama or his people was that Obama had never seen that questionaire and that an aide had filled it out (incorrectly, of course) in his stead. But he's been strangely quiet since Politico.Com revealed that it was, in fact, Obama who filled out the questionaire. So Obama thinks we have a right to bear arms, but he's okay with a nation-wide ban on handguns? He also proposed in 1999 a law that would prohibit a gun store within 5 miles of any school. 5 miles! How many gun stores would such a law close? Hundreds? Thousands? A bunch. But, by golly, we got the right to own them. And when the Illinois state legislature voted overwhelmingly in 2004 that legal defense would be provided to any resident who owned a handgun in a city (like Chicago) with a handgun ban if they used that gun in lawful self-defense of their property, guess who was one of the few to vote against it? I don't think I have to tell you. But we have the right to own guns.
And let's not forget that Obama said just earlier this month that concealed carry permits pose a threat to innocent citizens, saying: "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." Clearly, Obama needs to do some research here. 48 states allow citizens to go armed with the proper license. How many of those licensed individuals have shot an innocent bystander? How many of those individuals have used their concealed sidearm in the commission of a crime? How many of those individuals have used their gun in any kind of altercation at all in a public place? Insert the sound of chirping crickets right here.
Now, let's focus on Mrs. Clinton for a moment. I am admittedly a little uncomfortable with McCain's stance on guns, and we all know Obama's stance on guns, but of the bunch, Clinton is the easiest cucumber to pickle.
"I believe in the 2nd Amendment. People have the right to bear arms." That was Clinton's words during a debate in January. But then she adds, "I don't want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems."
Apparently, Clinton has the same problem comprehending Constitutional law as her colleague from Illinois. She, too, believes in the 2nd Amendment, but only where cities and states wish it to apply. Is the 2nd Amendment "” that little phrase that bluntly says "Shall not be infringed" "” really that murky? This isn't a states' right issue, and there is no way it could be construed as such. There is a reason we have a federal Constitution, a federal Bill of Rights. Because there are certain rights that are guaranteed every citizen of these United States. If there weren't, parts of Alabama and Mississippi might still practice segregation. Hell, they might still practice slavery. California would have done banned Christianity. So the same questions apply to Mrs. Clinton: What if a state government decided it wanted to regulate abortion in its state? What if it decided that no 2 people of the same sex were going to be able to shack up together? What if it decided that women couldn't vote? Would those things be okay? Of course not. Because they're *shock* Constitutional rights. Imagine that.
Clinton, like Obama, has a statistics problem. Clinton told an NAACP panel last year that the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for lowering crime in the '90s and that it should be reinstated. She said, "I want to get back to what works (in reference to gun violence being the #1 cause of death among young black men). Assault weapons are back on the streets. We've got to get back to what works again."
It is estimated that assault weapons are used in only 0.20% of all violent crimes, and in 1% of all gun crimes. It is estimated that assault weapons may be used in as few as 1% or as many as 7% of all homicides. Clearly, allowing them back on the street is not going to cause a major increase in crime, and figures do in fact show that both the rates for homicide and violent crimes continued to decline in 2005, one year after the sun was allowed to set on the AWB.
Clinton, who says that "People have the right to bear arms" and that "People hunt and shoot because it's part of who they are," has also proposed raising the minimum age for handgun ownership to 21 . . . meaning American men and women could serve a full term in the U.S. military "” with great big guns and all sorts of other munitions "” before being old enough to legally own a handgun as a civilian. What's screwed up with this picture? And when the Senate voted overwhelmingly the year after Hurricane Katrina to make sure that authorities were never again able to go door to door and seize guns from legal gunowners "” you know, in violation of the Constitution that Clinton believes in "” who was one of only 16 people in the Senate to vote against it? Why, none other than Mrs. Clinton. Not even Obama, who believes all handguns should be banned, would stoop so low as to vote against that bill.
So what part of "The right of the people" is so difficult to understand? Barack? Hillary? You both say you believe in the 2nd Amendment right to own guns. So what part of "Shall not be infringed" requires so much interpretation?
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I raised a similar issue a while back. Given Obama's gaffe about clinging to guns, both he and Hilary have both suddenly startedtalking more likeHNI members than liberal Democrats. Once the controversy is over, they will go back to their old ways. But the sound bites of them coming across as pro-gun and pro-hunting will likely come back to haunt them in the future.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
I agree with you for the most part. Obama and Hillary are lying low-life pond scum... A couple of points, though...
1. I think the rule is that, until each amendment has been found to apply to the states under the 14th Amendment, they only operate as restrictions on the Federal government. This ruling has not been made with regard to the 2nd Amendment.
2. You say Hillary is proposing raising the age to buy handguns to 21. I thought that was already the law, and has been for quite some time.
I agree with you for the most part.Â*Â* Obama and Hillary are lying low-life pond scum... A couple of points, though...Â*
1.Â* I think the rule is that, until each amendment has been found to apply to the states under the 14th Amendment, they only operate as restrictions on the Federal government.Â* This ruling has not been made with regard to the 2nd Amendment.
I'll concede that. I still think each point holds true, though.
Quote:
2.Â* You say Hillary is proposing raising the age to buy handguns to 21.Â* I thought that was already the law, and has been for quite some time.
No, Clinton has proposed to raise the age to OWN a handgun to 21. Currently (although city/state laws might apply in some places) 18-year-olds can own a handgun. They just can't purchase a handgun.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
Hey, who twisted your arm and forced you to read it?
What makes you think I did? I only counted the paragraphs. Knowing what people on this forum think of Hillary and Obama and guns, I was able to summarize it all in one sentence for all the others who don't have the time to read it all!
What makes you think I did? I only counted the paragraphs. Knowing what people on this forum think of Hillary and Obama and guns, I was able to summarize it all in one sentence for all the others who don't have the time to read it all!
You didn't read it? Then how do you know all 20 paragraphs dealt with Obama and Clinton and guns? I may have paused for 2 or 3 paragraphs to insult you, your intelligence and your mama, for all you know. You better go back and make sure.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
You didn't read it? Then how do you know all 20 paragraphs dealt with Obama and Clinton and guns? I may have paused for 2 or 3 paragraphs to insult you, your intelligence and your mama, for all you know. You better go back and make sure.
My skin is quite thick, so if I or my mamma was insulted in any of your paragraphs so be it. Others who choose to read your post can conclude for themselves whether my one sentence summary of it is correct or not.
It's interesting that you didn't have time to read 20 paragraphs but you've been on this thread several times today. Maybe you just couldn't disagree with the facts that were presented so you decided to take on a belittling attitude instead?
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
What part of 'Shall not'?
