It isn’t that we don’t think the Second means nothing, it’s that you have to read the ENTIRE amendment to see that it applies to militias, NOT individuals. You’re asking him to use a premise which he belives does not exist. You may as well ask: when has McCain supported abortion rights on Constitutional grounds?
The difference being that you can read the ENTIRE Constitution and find no references to “abortion” or “penumbrae” or “emanation”. You can find references to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Note the word “people”, as in the right of “people” peaceably to assemble, and to keep and bear arms.
But, as you say, if and when the Supreme Court finds a right of individuals to keep and bear arms, I look forward to Sen. Obama mentioning that he was wrong.
Ha ha.
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks–that was awesome. 
I’m sure he will. And that one admission will break George W Bush’s record.
But Obama says he believes there is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.
Soo…
Clearly no interest in acknowledging or protecting the second amendment.
So Obama supports an individual right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be infringed except when it can. When the arms are used for purposes other than those served by a militia, they are protected, but not otherwise. 
I’m sure Shayna will be along shortly to explain why Obama didn’t mean what he said, except that he did, but not anymore, and it isn’t lying to say things you don’t mean, unless you do mean them, in which case it doesn’t count.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t really see what it matters how a president feels about it. The Supremes are going to rule how they rule, and how Obama or you or me think is irrelevant. I’m always amazed at how otherwise rational people will vote against their economic self interest out of gun control paranoia. If you’re one of those that think the most important issue is the Second Half of the Second Amendment, Obama didn’t have a prayer of getting your vote in the first place.
Hey, I didn’t say I shared his opinion, but for a Democrat, it isn’t half bad. I’d put it as ‘acceptable’, and have done with it.
He’s still better than ElvisLives.
Edit: Bob, it matters simply because he is a professor of constitutional law, and therefore a man of some experience on the matter. Also, it matters because, no matter what, after the Supremes rule, there will be perspectives to apply on appropriate laws.
Oh, I think it’s plenty relevant. The President nominates to the Supreme Court, and some of the Justices are getting rather long in the tooth. Should Obama make it to the Oval Office, I would be interested in hearing his notions of the Constitution and how it works.
I’m guessing there will be a lot less talk about stare decisis if the Supremes do find an individual right to bear arms, and Obama has to submit some names to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Of course, I’ll be sure to bring up Roe v. Wade as another example of a case where stare decisis might not be such a good idea, and watch some heads explode.
Regards,
Shodan
He’s the guy signing gun control laws, appointing new supreme court justices, and influencing policy. Of course his position isn’t irrelevant.
If you replaced “gun control paranoia” with, say, “concerns for the right to privacy” does it still sound as rational to you? What if the Republicans were the advocates of reasonable fiscal policy, but still enacted laws like the PATRIOT act? Could a Republican then say “I’m always amazed at how otherwise rational people will vote against economic self interest out of concern for the right to privacy”?
I know it seems to you as if guns were some minor, nearly irrelevant issue, but you can tell a lot about a politician based on their view of gun rights.
Government having a monopoly on force is extremely dangerous to the health of a free republic. The people are the master, the elected representatives are the servant. But when you have a politician who wishes to disarm you, he wishes himself to be the master and you the servant. It’s not only about guns - it’s about the fundamental relationship between the people and the government.
And you’re very wrong about Obama being unable to get the vote of people who value gun rights anyway. Not all gun rights advocates are neo-con supporting morons. I, myself, would vote for Obama if forced to vote for any of the three major remaining candidates - but I will most likely not vote for him, and one of the big reasons is his positions on gun control. I’m not a republican and I’m certainly interested in the idea of someone different being president - but his views on gun rights - one of the fundamental freedoms in my view, just as important as the freedom of speech or any of the others - is reprehensible.
Would you vote for a candidate that you mostly liked, but was fundemantally in opposition to one of your basic rights, like the freedom of speech?
I am confused. Isn’t this exactly the way you have told me you expect the Supremes to handle it? Declaring an individual Constitutional Right but subjecting it to “reasonable” regulation. With the question being what constitutes “reasonable” and what sort of gun use is considered most protected. Seems like previously the Supreme ruling had been less of a focus on the individual right and that Obama is more in keeping with the leanings of the current court, even anticipating their questioning and thinking along similar veins (even if possibly concluding differently as to what is “reasonable”).
If that line of thinking is good enough for Supremes, isn’t it good enough for a President?
Sort of. I said that they’d probably turn out a chickenshit decision along those lines. Doesn’t make it right.
A point I clearly made on that thread is that the second amendment is not about hunters. It’s not about sport shooters. But as there are a significant amount of assholes who pose as gun rights advocates (and donate to the NRA and such) who will sell out the second amendment in general if exceptions are made for their particular hobby, then politicians will pay lip service to not infringing of the rights of those people.
The “sporting purpose” clause in various gun legislations, and speaking about protecting the rights of hunters and sport shooters, is not about protecting the second amendment.
How is it that Britain, Canada, etc. manage to live free without guns? Guns are not requisite for political freedom.
Yes, my understanding from that conversation was that a consistent application of that interpretation of the Second would protect individual ownership of weapons with solid military use most of all. Hunting and self-protection less so. It may be chickenshit for the various interests to avoid that logically consistent application but he is at least very likely in good company with some great minds.
Is it fair to fault him for thinking along similar lines as the current Supremes? (Who seem more gun-rights friendly than past Supremes.)
Well, this is getting into pretty strong hijack territory, but the original discussion in the thread has pretty much died off…
Canada shouldn’t be included with Britain - gun ownership in general is fairly widespread.
I don’t know enough about the politics of Britain to evaluate to what degree they’re free. It’s not a black and white, free or not free issue. They are at the mercy of their government and have no extra-political ability to assert or protect their freedoms. But they live in a place where historically they’ve been subjects rather than citizens, they have a different idea about what freedom is. Fundamentally I don’t really consider them to be a free people - their freedom is granted to them at the mercy of their government, so while they may enjoy a wide range of personal freedoms, it’s more a privilege than a right.
Yes, it’s fair to fault him for that. He’s fundamentally ignoring one of the main tenants of the document he’ll swear to uphold. Because ignorant that tenant is popular and has precedent doesn’t make it right.
It is dishonest to proclaim one’s support for the second amendment and then only speak in terms of hunters and sportsmen.
It’s absurd to proclaim support for the second amendment after having declared or had declared on his behalf a desire to ban “all semi-automatic weapons” and never renounce that.
It’s as repugnant to me as if he said “I believe in the Constitution, except for the freedom of speech”. So of course he deserves criticism and scrutiny.
That was too damn funny!
“I’m going in! Cover me, Chelsea!”
“Sinbad’s down! Sinbad’s down!!!”
On a more serious note, here’s Christopher Hitchens’ take on the real story of the Clintons and Bosnia:
In short: No genocide help as promised in Clinton’s ‘92 campaign because Hillary thought Bosnia would become another Vietnam and detract from her health care plan. Further, secretary of defense Les Aspin told Hitchens that they forbade him from simply landing his plane there to show solidarity for the same reason. Hitchens’ description of the conversation with Aspin follows:
"I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton’s then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady’s health care “initiative.”
Hitchens states in his article that an additional 250,000 Bosnians died during the period of time in which the Clintons took a hands-off approach to the genocide occurring there.
One wonders if perhaps she was behind Bill’s decision not to nail Bin Laden when he had the chance for the same reason.
Wow, that’s a new one on me! Maybe we should dump off a boatload of guns to the British and they can enjoy the same freedoms that they do in Baghdad, where everybody packs heat.
This is a hijack so no more gun comments from me in this thread. Kind of a waste of time, actually. Very few people have ever changed their mind about gun control and discussions like these spread more heat than light.
You’re basing this conclusion on your own personal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Just because someone doesn’t buy into your interpretation of the amendment’s intent doesn’t mean they don’t support it.