Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

A "Response" from Obama's Website
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=9188		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  RalphieRoo [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:  A "Response" from Obama's Website
Hey,
I've been feeling pretty sick to my stomach lately about this campaign. I'm so unhappy with the Bush-camp gutting of the constitution (all but the 2nd Amendment) that I cannot see voting republican. Yet, I know that Obama WILL act to ban guns to the extent possible.... Ugh. I feel sick.

So, I posted a message on the Obama website - said that although I had supported them in the past it was before I learned his truly anti-gun record... I needed to see a clear policy on 2nd amendment rights. Here is the response I received:

Quote:
Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting Senator Obama about gun laws and the Second Amendment. We appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As a former constitutional law professor, Senator Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense public safety regulation.

We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and Second Amendment rights.

Senator Obama will continue to work for common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole, and effective law enforcement. He will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people.

To learn more about Senator Obama's plans to support the rights and traditions of sportsmen, please click here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/addit ... rtsmen.pdf

Thank you again for contacting us on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Obama for America


:!:
Now, here is what always gets me. Where in the 2nd amendment does it talk about hunting? How come everyone always brings hunting into this???

The second amendment simply says:
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Am I missing the hunting/fishing in there? Do I have a misprinted copy of the constitution?

Well, at least he got the "Individual Right" part correct. Damn.
Author:  jaysong [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
You could reply to their email and ask them that question. I doubt you would get a response.
Author:  ttousi [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
While you are at it ask them to give you an example of this:

Quote:
He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense public safety regulation.


and an example of this:

Quote:
We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and Second Amendment rights.


Load of crap..............nothing applies to the criminals here only the law abiding.

"reasonable xyz" hard to argue when the word is used before any phrase/subject
Author:  jdege [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A "Response" from Obama's Website
RalphieRoo wrote:
Now, here is what always gets me. Where in the 2nd amendment does it talk about hunting? How come everyone always brings hunting into this???

Hunting has always been part of the debate, ever since the dissenting minority of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention first called for a federal bill of rights in 1787. Their language:

Quote:
the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals


They were clearly calling for recognition of an individual right, that included both hunting and self defense, as well as for collective defense through the militia.

Problem is that the hunting aspects are less controversial, so politicians try to quibble. In my mind, any politician who won't explicitly recognize both aspects of the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not to be trusted.
Author:  Srigs [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Reasonable is what ever he decides it is :roll: :roll: :roll:

That is why the bate and switch with hunter rights and other BS.
Author:  bensdad [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Divide and conquer baby!!! Let the hunters know that they will be able to keep their Model 70s and 700s. Oh, and their duck guns. Once they breath a sigh of relief, vote Dem. and throw us (handgun owners, AK/AR/SETME/etc. owners) under the bus, they will be the next target.

I bet I know more hunters who don't value RKBA than do.
Author:  Lawyer_in_Training [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A "Response" from Obama's Website
RalphieRoo wrote:
Quote:
As a former constitutional law professor, Senator Obama believes...


Con law profs. don't know anything about the Second Amendment. They don't teach the constitution in law school. They teach U.S. Supreme Court case law. I have a 2" think con law book that never discussed the 2nd Amdt.

Ralphie, you're wasting your time. It'd be easier to get water out of a stone than get that nut to support the 2nd Amdt.

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Author:  Scott Hughes [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Well I always encourage watching the DVD “In search of the Second Amendment” .

Some Professors do teach the constitution (Joe Olson) ask Kimberman :!:

Here’s a very good link to find out:

http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com

When you've seen it pass it on :!: 8) 8) 8)

ETA: I wonder if Obama understands the context of 14A with regard to 2A :?:
Author:  Lawyer_in_Training [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd be curious to see a copy of Kimberman's last Con-Law syllabus. I'd be surprised if the 2nd Amdt. gets more than a day or two of attention in even his class.

The point isn't that there aren't any law professors who study the second amendment. It was to inform the OP that just because B.O. was a con law prof. it doesn't mean he knows anything about the 2nd Amdt.


Scott Hughes wrote:
Some Professors do teach the constitution (Joe Olson) ask Kimberman :!:

Here’s a very good link to find out:

http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com

ETA: I wonder if Obama understands the context of 14A with regard to 2A :?:
Author:  someone1980 [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:11 am ]
Post subject: 
The first paragraph was pretty good. It actually had me thinking that they were taking the time to lie properly. Then I read the rest of it. Same old.
Author:  G27 [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not sure if this image is going to show up but here goes.

Found this neat web site http://wordle.net/create that allows you to enter some words in and it mixes them up for you and you can change a bunch of the options.

Thought I would try Obama's letter and see what comes up. The more times a word is enter the bigger it gets. Funny because I added a couple of words "against" to get some desired results. I like my result of Against Senator Obama.

http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31296/Not_an_Obama_fan
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/