Sounds like go hunting in the countryside all you like , but keep weapons out of the city.
Declan
Clearly there is no point in discussing this with you, so I’ll just quote your post and bow out:
You said “almost all” and I said “all,” and for that I apologize. However, your post is still misleading, because that amendment sought nothing like what you are portraying.
Like any other right, the right to bear arms does not exist in a vacuum. The right to free speech does not entitle you to run into a nursing home screaming “Fire!” just so you can laugh at the frightened old people. The right to worship as you please does not entitle you to sacrifice virgins on a granite altar. And the right to own guns does not entitle you to use guns in the commission of crimes.
Then you want a person who surrounds himself with the most knowledgable advisors on all sides of issues. You might also keep in mind that the National Rifle Association once branded John McCain as “one of the premier flag-carriers for enemies of the Second Amendment,” until he modified his positions sufficiently to please them (though he still, to their chagrin, favors background checks). His reception at their meeting in West Virginia was tepid, especially compared to that of Mike Huckabee.
Meanwhile, Obama is receiving endorsements from grassroots gun-owner organizations who don’t have the lobbying clout of the NRA:
Today, as president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I announced our endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. Because the gun issue has recently become a factor in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, I want to share the remarks I made today:
As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands.
We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama’s stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight.
Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency.
Using guns in the commission of crimes is a far cry from keeping a handgun in your home for personal protection, and the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded building goes too far.
It would be as if a state passed a law outlawing political speech everywhere except in your own home with a permit, but then refuses to issue permits, and a “free speech advocate” feels that this is “reasonable regulation” to prevent dangerous speech.
The second amendment isn’t about hunting ducks.
Where’s my M16? I had one when I was protecting every American’s right to own a land barge and fill it with cheap gas.
Personally I like the decision. Professionally, it’s meaningless. People who should not have guns will always be able to get guns no matter how many laws you write. I remember a few years ago I got two people on probation at about the same time. One had a federal firearms dealer license and, prior to being placed on probation, had about 100 guns at his house. The other had no gun permit and had been arrested with a sawed-off shotgun. Since they were not allowed to have any guns in their houses while on probation, I had to search their houses to make sure they were complying. Who do you think I felt more comfortable visiting, the guy who had 100 legal guns, or the guy who had 1 illegal one?
As for the armor-piercing ammunition, I don’t see the need for Kennedy’s amendment that has been the topic for discussion here. I’m perfectly happy with my state’s ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition, (I think the guy I caught with it is still in prison, if fact), and the way the amendment read on armor piercing rifle ammunition is just bizarre. They want to ban rifle ammunition that is MORE armor piercing than regular rifle rounds? What the hell do I care, as someone who wears body armor, if a round is MORE armor piercing? ANY amount of armor piercing is bad, as far as I’m concerned. More vs. less armor piercing is like being more vs. less pregnant. If it comes out of a rifle other than a .22 it’s armor piercing, as far as I’m concerned. (I know there are some rare exceptions to that, but it’s a pretty safe bet.)
It seems to me that if Obama opposes the forfeiture of guns during a national crisis (as the above shows he does), then he has no problem with guns used for home defense. I believe he also supports equal protection, as I haven’t seen anything to the contrary. Have you?
I thought I’d quote this again, because it seems significant. Yes, Obama might want tighter regulation on guns than y’all would like, but it doesn’t look like he’s going to go house to house with a portable smelter anytime soon.
Since Heller also does “…not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases…” I read this to say that it’s simply unaddressed, without a hint of the eventual result.
You can’t look to 1890s cases, or even 1930s cases, to get a good read on incorporation. Hell, Everson, the case that incorporated the First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause against the states, wasn’t until 1947. The Fourth’s unreasonable search and seizure wasn’t incorporated until 1949, in Wolf v. Colordao. (And even then, the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth wasn’t a state requirement until Mapp in 1961!!)
So… the mere fact that earlier cases ignored the Second Amendment is not remotely instructive; the framework for incorporation didn’t exist in 1893.
There are plenty of questions left unanswered by Heller – but as the opinion itself acknowledges:
Right, the AHSA. Founded two years ago. What do we know about them?
Well, their president, Ray Schoenke, donated 5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. in 2000 (obtained through Opensecrets.org). The same search shows donations to some of the most rabid anti-gun politicians in the country.
They’re not grassroots at all - they’re a cover group that can give liberals an endorsement with a name that sounds like a genuine sporting organization. Real gun owners can’t stand these guys. And please note, the NRA will happily endorse a Democrat in a race if he has a better gun record than the Republican running.
You got taken.
If that ain’t a dirty trick. :mad:
Except that the NRA does not oppose background checks. The NRA, in fact, has helped draft legislation that is incorporated into the Brady Act because they do support background checks.
“We believe that the NICS should serve the intent of Congress, which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to criminals and other prohibited persons, such as adjudicated mental defectives.”
"The NRA will continue to work for the quickest and most accurate NICS possible on behalf of our members and law-abiding gun owners across the country. "
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=217&issue=018
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HV9SG0.html
Again, I ask: How does a person who supports an individual right to own firearms simply nod his head and say “Right, Right” while being asked a question in which he is told he supports a handgun ban and thinks it is constitutional?
Look, I gave Obama a lot of credit for voting the right way on the Vitter amendment. Did so on these boards in another thread months ago. But that doesn’t mean the rest of his record goes away, and overall that record isn’t great from my point of view.
IMHO, Obama is backpedaling so fast he could scale Everest in reverse. It would be political suicide to admit you want to ban handguns. Before she was out of the running, even Hillary choked out a carefully scripted “I support the right to” speech.
Can we all agree that politicians are, by nature, panderers because they need to lie about their true feelings in order to convince people to vote for them, and that they should be judged by their actual deeds and not what they say while trying to convince people to elect them?
Perhaps. May we further agree that anyone who connects Barack Obama to Osama is probably not worth talking to?
I’m no Obama fan, but I’ll agree with that.
That’s not what I’m trying to do, I was just trying to have words that rhyme with Obama in my location because of the thing that’s been going around. It was a joke. I am not trying to equate him with Osama, I realize he’s not a Muslim, etc etc. Honestly I think that besides the gun idiocy, he is a good man. But changed it anyway. OK?
Yep.