PDA

View Full Version : Last Clinton Obama Debate


dixieD
04-20-2008, 11:07 AM
I didn't have a chance to watch the debate, but here are a few quotes. This is a recap from NRA-ILA (http://http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3847)

Friday, April 18, 2008

Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.

As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”

Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.” Too bad Charlie Gibson didn't then ask Obama if he felt the same way.

Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…” Wow!! Makes me wonder what else he's got up his sleeves.

When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”

Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”

“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.

“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.

“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.

What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would. How true, but it is sure fun watching them destroy each others credibility, which I believe extends well beyond the gun issue

FlyingPen
04-20-2008, 11:14 AM
Neither are that great on guns but between the two, I'm more hopeful of Obama who at least doesn't support a Federal ban, at least he didn't say so.

M. Sage
04-20-2008, 11:17 AM
Neither are that great on guns but between the two, I'm more hopeful of Obama who at least doesn't support a Federal ban, at least he didn't say so.

... this time. He's said previously, though, that he supports a ban on the sale and transfer of all semi-automatic firearms.

dixieD
04-20-2008, 11:19 AM
Neither are that great on guns but between the two, I'm more hopeful of Obama who at least doesn't support a Federal ban, at least he didn't say so.

Problem was he was not asked. As the article shows he was evasive on other questions leading to the quip. Based on his record it is safe to assume that he does, unless he has the guts to actually come out and say that he doesn't and would fight to see that it is not reinstated.

Fjold
04-20-2008, 11:39 AM
"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

What other rights does that apply to, Mr Obama?

Casual Observer
04-20-2008, 12:06 PM
"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

What other rights does that apply to, Mr Obama?

No Constitutional rights are absolute. The 1st Amendment is a perfect example- there are some things you can not say (yelling "fire!" in a theater for example) and there are places and times you can not assemble to protest (doing so without a permit in most places is illegal) and, to cite a current case in Texas, the right to religious practice isn't absolute either (polygamy).

And after reading the oral transcripts from Heller, even the SCOTUS believes in "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment. The question then becomes....what is reasonable? By who's standards?

Both Democratic candidates are walking a fine line in PA- a state with more registered hunters than any other state as well as over a quarter million NRA members.

dustoff31
04-20-2008, 12:11 PM
As with anyone, especially politicians, I always pay more attention to what they DO, as opposed to what they SAY. I would encourage everyone to read the following article.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html

Opening paragraphs:

"Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

mymonkeyman
04-20-2008, 12:18 PM
Obama evasive, that's a shocker. The real problem is that Obama thinks the 2nd amendment can be constrained so much that it is meaningless. You can be sure that Obama does not think that 1st amendment is nearly limited as the 2nd amendment, nor does he think that the framers intended a weak 2nd amendment. He just believes because it is incongruent with his personal beliefs regarding how to handle urban crime it should be ignored.

bernieb90
04-20-2008, 12:20 PM
No Constitutional rights are absolute. The 1st Amendment is a perfect example- there are some things you can not say (yelling "fire!" in a theater for example) and there are places and times you can not assemble to protest (doing so without a permit in most places is illegal) and, to cite a current case in Texas, the right to religious practice isn't absolute either (polygamy).

And after reading the oral transcripts from Heller, even the SCOTUS believes in "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment. The question then becomes....what is reasonable? By who's standards?

Both Democratic candidates are walking a fine line in PA- a state with more registered hunters than any other state as well as over a quarter million NRA members.

Sure there are things that are an issue if you say them, but the government has no right to take your voice. The government can make dicharging a firearm in a public place illegal, but should not be able to restrict the object itself.

I see no problem with limiting the right of religeous whackos from abusing 15 year old girls. Polygamy is not the issue in the Texas case. If a create a religon that requires that I beat up old ladies I think I should be in jail too.

FlyingPen
04-20-2008, 12:44 PM
Free speech is a regulated right. Just about every right is limited by the government in some form.

dixieD
04-20-2008, 3:05 PM
I understand that rights have been and can be limited. I especially don't like it when they are considered so basic that they were enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I have been having a hard time on the one hand knowing that we live in the land of the free, and on the other hand living in a country and state that passes legislation to limit freedom.

It seems that state and federal level legislation is overwelmingly geared toward limits of freedom and bans on all levels, whether it is smoking in ones home, barbequeing, having wood fires in winter, home schooling children, airsoft, ammo, guns, the 10 commandments at court houses. Where will it stop? Aside from the lifting of the absenthe ban when was the last time that a liberty was granted since the civil rights reforms?

Having candidates state that they are going to reel in my rights more than they already have been does not make me excited about the prospects of their leading the country.

Casual Observer
04-20-2008, 4:46 PM
I understand that rights have been and can be limited. I especially don't like it when they are considered so basic that they were enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I have been having a hard time on the one hand knowing that we live in the land of the free, and on the other hand living in a country and state that passes legislation to limit freedom.

It seems that state and federal level legislation is overwelmingly geared toward limits of freedom and bans on all levels, whether it is smoking in ones home, barbequeing, having wood fires in winter, home schooling children, airsoft, ammo, guns, the 10 commandments at court houses. Where will it stop? Aside from the lifting of the absenthe ban when was the last time that a liberty was granted since the civil rights reforms?

Having candidates state that they are going to reel in my rights more than they already have been does not make me excited about the prospects of their leading the country.

But....it's all for the safety of the children!

Think of the children! ;)

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2008, 1:08 AM
No Constitutional rights are absolute. The 1st Amendment is a perfect example- there are some things you can not say (yelling "fire!" in a theater for example) and there are places and times you can not assemble to protest (doing so without a permit in most places is illegal) and, to cite a current case in Texas, the right to religious practice isn't absolute either (polygamy).

And after reading the oral transcripts from Heller, even the SCOTUS believes in "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment. The question then becomes....what is reasonable? By who's standards?

Both Democratic candidates are walking a fine line in PA- a state with more registered hunters than any other state as well as over a quarter million NRA members.

What if there really is a fire in a crowded theater? Can I still not yell FIRE?!?!

The real issue is responsibility. We have the ability to do just about anything we want, but if we put others in harm or danger their property we could be held liable.

The same should be true for firearms. Dont punish me or restrict my freedoms for what I "might" do...punish me for harm or damage that I actually cause.

chris
04-21-2008, 1:14 PM
not surprised by any answer these 2 gun grabbers said. AWB 2.0 will make the original pale in comparisson. think Kalifornia AWB and may go further than that. depsite the Heller outcome these to Liberals will ignore it anyway.

Glock22Fan
04-21-2008, 1:44 PM
Forget for a moment which one is more (or less) anti guns. Which one is more likely to be beaten by McCaine?

Not that I think McCaine is good - far from it - but he has to be better than either of those *&^%$ candidates.

If he stands a better chance of defeating Clinton, then that's who we want.

Only if McCaine has no chance against either of them should we be looking for the best of the democrats. Either of them would be disastrous for us.

chris
04-21-2008, 2:48 PM
there are no good democrats running for office.

Billness
04-21-2008, 3:12 PM
What if there really is a fire in a crowded theater? Can I still not yell FIRE?!?!

The real issue is responsibility. We have the ability to do just about anything we want, but if we put others in harm or danger their property we could be held liable.

The same should be true for firearms. Dont punish me or restrict my freedoms for what I "might" do...punish me for harm or damage that I actually cause.

Indeed. You can yell "fire" in a theater all day long if there is a fire. (Better not spend all day in there!) IIRC, the more current example is that you can't say something that's both intended to incite "imminent lawless action" and likely to succeed. (This was applied to political speech, though, so YMMV.)

Hmm ... interesting ... a similar test for 2A might be along the lines of simply not being able to use a firearm in a directly threatening manner (barring self-defense), regardless of type. Fantasy? Maybe so. A good fantasy? Yes. :D