Obama and Oprah...

[kjr_trig]

I think the media is playing the Obama hype out. The real polls I have seen have him far behind Hillary almost everywhere that counts. Hillary is going to beat him in a landslide....Then hopefully she will lose to whomever gets the Republican spot.

That will not be Ron Paul BTW.

 

[skipperdz]

has anyone seen the picture of obama and oprah they had in nat.enq. lol they seemed like they had a thing goin and his wife looked pissed! lol

 

[rylan1]

In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.
Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes - mass murder, the ---- and murder of a child - so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
QUOTE]
There are many people who have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I don't get whats wrong with these statements... There have been innocent people placed on death row... so in saying that he supports it in theory...I don't get whats wrong with that... He realizes that the system is flawed because there is no constant measure to apply the penalty... You have to take into account the innocent people who have been later aquitted and the ones that there was great predujice when they were sentenced.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Educate yourself. Obama favored a ban on handguns, Supported a bill to ban all Simi automatic guns, Limiting hand gun purchases to one a month, and Supports a national law to make concealed carry illegal for anyone but ex military or law enforcement. Just this alone make him unsuitable for my vote but I dug up more, Opposes parental notification in the case of a minor child seeking an abortion, Opposed prohibiting women on welfare from gaining additional benefits if they have more children etc.
I can't believe I actually thought this SOB was not bad guy

Here's the info on a couple of the gun deals
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...tml?source=rss
In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.
Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes - mass murder, the ---- and murder of a child - so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
Then there's another crime-related issue, gun control.
That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign's answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable" but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.
His legislative record in Illinois shows strong support for gun restrictions, such as limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms.
Obama's presidential campaign contends that voters can't learn anything about his views from the 1996 questionnaire, which was for an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO. Aides say Obama did not fill out the questionnaire and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.
"Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Even conservative columnists have said they'd scoured Obama's record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."
IVI-IPO officials say it's inconceivable that Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn't suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.
I'm trying to digest your statements and I don't see anything in here that makes him a bad guy... even if you disagree... I would think that handguns are a problem in his state...particularly Chicago where I would assume murders are high and come most often by the use of a handgun. So this is an approach to limit and make illegal the use and purchase if certain guns. As a hunter or sportsman... why do you need a semi-auto handgun? Why do you need to buy more than 1 gun per month? But in regards to his other views.. these are views that most democrates feel the same way about. IMO he is consistant and straightforward... the difference b/w a questionarie and a statement is the ability to elaborate... I don't see any difference in his views 8 years later... This is a quality that I want in a president... its something we don't have in the current administration... and something I don't think we would get from Clinton and most of the other candidates.
By the way, these are things he could not change as president... they are all constitutional.......... these things seem like minor things to me right now... we have much bigger problems and IMO you are knit-picking... are you for Ron Paul or someone else?

 

[reefraff]

He supported an all out hand gun ban./ Then he supported a Simi Auto ban.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so confusing? How bout we only allow free speech on certain days or get rid of the flaky religions? Anyone who doesn't respect rights that are specifically listed in the constitution is dangerous in my opinion.

 

[stdreb27]

It really bothers me, seriously, why in the world vote because of the color of their skin or their gender (that shouldn't be blocked) or their religion? It doesn't make a lick of sense. Listening to Obama and gun control is like listening to Rhomony (I can't spell ) and abortion. Libertarians have some good ideas, but come on, abolish the fed. Even I don't believe in free markets that much. That is one of the branches of govt that isn't all that screwed up. I do like killing the IRS, but then instead of doing the thing that makes sense and reducing govt spending on wasteful stuff, they'll just figure out a different way to tax us into oblivian.

 

[dogstar]

What part of the artical do you understand ?
" 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. "
Do you know what the term " bear arms " means/ment in the 1700s....the show or use of military force.
What the artical is saying...is the people have the right to keep a well regulated militia.
IMO, this does not address an individuals right to keep weapons at all.
Even if one does not see this or except it...look at the word " regulated ".
This allows for rules, laws to be use to regulate this right.....It is so you cant just have whatever you wish ( like a nuclear bomb ), its for the representives of the people ( Congress or local governments ) to regulate the arms as they feel a need.
I quess some people feel they should be able to have their own nuclear bomb though.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
What part of the artical do you understand ?
" 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. "
Do you know what the term " bear arms " means/ment in the 1700s....the show or use of military force.
What the artical is saying...is the people have the right to keep a well regulated militia.
IMO, this does not address an individuals right to keep weapons at all.
Even if one does not see this or except it...look at the word " regulated ".
This allows for rules, laws to be use to regulate this right.....It is so you cant just have whatever you wish ( like a nuclear bomb ), its for the representives of the people ( Congress or local governments ) to regulate the arms as they feel a need.
I quess some people feel they should be able to have their own nuclear bomb though.
That is funny, I always read "We the People" as me.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
He supported an all out hand gun ban./ Then he supported a Simi Auto ban.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so confusing? How bout we only allow free speech on certain days or get rid of the flaky religions? Anyone who doesn't respect rights that are specifically listed in the constitution is dangerous in my opinion.
As I said, a handgun ban is not an all out gun ban. It seems to me that most gun violence is by a handgun or semi-auto gun... this would remove the guns of choice by criminals.
Secondly, if you feel the way you do about the Constitution...then you should be calling for the impeachments of Bush and Cheney and their disregard for the Constitution and world laws.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
That is funny, I always read "We the People" as me.

No. It means me too.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
It really bothers me, seriously, why in the world vote because of the color of their skin or their gender (that shouldn't be blocked) or their religion? It doesn't make a lick of sense. Listening to Obama and gun control is like listening to Rhomony (I can't spell ) and abortion. Libertarians have some good ideas, but come on, abolish the fed. Even I don't believe in free markets that much. That is one of the branches of govt that isn't all that screwed up. I do like killing the IRS, but then instead of doing the thing that makes sense and reducing govt spending on wasteful stuff, they'll just figure out a different way to tax us into oblivian.

I haven't heard Obama having this opinion.... but it does rule out Ron Paul... he wants to do this.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I haven't heard Obama having this opinion.... but it does rule out Ron Paul... he wants to do this.
One of the guys at work here is Ron Paul's grandson-in-law. I work in a pretty conservative place, so alot of the folks here have met him outside of a public appearance, and they say Ron Paul is a nut, but at least he is a down to earth honest nut.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
What part of the artical do you understand ?
" 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. "
Do you know what the term " bear arms " means/ment in the 1700s....the show or use of military force.
What the artical is saying...is the people have the right to keep a well regulated militia.
IMO, this does not address an individuals right to keep weapons at all.
Even if one does not see this or except it...look at the word " regulated ".
This allows for rules, laws to be use to regulate this right.....It is so you cant just have whatever you wish ( like a nuclear bomb ), its for the representives of the people ( Congress or local governments ) to regulate the arms as they feel a need.
I quess some people feel they should be able to have their own nuclear bomb though.
Let's go over this slowly, The right (n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal) Of the people (Not able bodied males 16 to 50 as would be those subject to service in the Militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The word people was used just as in the 1st 4th 9th and 10th amendments.
Quite frankly it wouldn't matter if the amendment read "In order to protect us against attack by little green men from space, the right of the people to keep and bare arms". The fact is the "people" were given the entitlement to possess and use arms. The reason behind that doesn't matter. It doesn't read "As long as, or for such period of time as a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state". It was an absolute statement with no conditions.
Many writings of those who crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights make mention of the reasons for granting the right to bear arms that had nothing to do with military service.
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia: Proposed Virginia Constitution
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over people of almost every nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, of Virginia: The Federalist, No. 46
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting with approval a noted criminologist of his day.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
As I said, a handgun ban is not an all out gun ban. It seems to me that most gun violence is by a handgun or semi-auto gun... this would remove the guns of choice by criminals.
Secondly, if you feel the way you do about the Constitution...then you should be calling for the impeachments of Bush and Cheney and their disregard for the Constitution and world laws.
Violent music lyrics and video games and movies cause violent crime too so lets just ban them too. If I thought Bush had violated the Constitution I would be all for impeaching him.
You can't really be so naive as to believe criminals will turn in their weapons if they are banned. I got a lot of handguns and simi autos and have never had anything more serious than a traffic ticket in my life. Short of a Constitutional amendment or me becoming a felon I am not giving up my stuff. You really think someone who uses a gun to commit crimes is going to?

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Let's go over this slowly.........
Ok, you can laugh, call me slow. You can quote anyone and pick out only parts if you wish, but my piont was not to do that...
Thats why I posted the compleat amendment.
A person today would read that amendment and be confused. What is a malitia ? Is that saying I have the right to have a gun ? You can claim that the admendment has nothing to do with a military. That it is somehow addressing only an individuals right to keep any weapon they choose,
but you must look at the compleate article and period it was written....look at the Articles of the Confederation. It clearly states what a malitia was and how and when it could/should be used......
""....but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage....""
This is what the people at the time were used to. They were decideing to ratify the Constitution that gave the Feds a strong military with the President being Commander and Cheif and had their conserns...what about their malitias?
The amendment adresses the malitias, its the first thing mentioned in the amendment. It is why it was written. Why are they addressing the malitias? Because they are aggreeing with the people, its " necessary " and they said so.....what are they saying that they are going to do about the malitias ?? not allow the Feds or States, buy law, to take them away.....
So, where are those necessary malitias today? Today it has little relevance.
I want agree, but you can claim that you are the malitia. We all are the malitia, but then you must as I said earlier, agree that you can be regulated. The word is there, you cant ignore it. Do you think that criminals or the insane should be allowed to keep guns, if not, then you agree with regulations, It is one and there are many more today as well. Is it possible that they could outlaw all guns? yes. Will they? Most likly not. Because the people want allow that IMO. They are part of what we are. Can this change ? yes, it is changeing. Sorry.
No Founding Federal Governing documents actually address the individual's right to keep guns that I know. Thats why goverments ( Federal, States, Cities if states allow ) can make gun laws as they choose. The courts dont strike most of them down.
Its not rather I want gun laws now or if you dont ever, its about rather enough of us do or dont whenever.
Now, this brings me back to Obama and what the people want. Who they choose to vote for and why. If his beleif that gun control may help with crime and enough people agree and vote for him. Then he as President, can sign a gun law if Congress passes one again. He can persade Congress to do so again. He cant make a gun law by himself. And the courts most likely would let it stand again, because theres nothing Im aware of to prevent that. If you dont agree, then dont vote for him.
Im not a lawyer or a judge nor am I against guns, BTW. I own one myself. I dont have a problem with people who want to keep certain guns. I just dont agree with people trying to misrepresent the Constitution when IMO, thats what there doing. Thats why I posted the compleat article when someone earlier, IMO, also did that.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Violent music lyrics and video games and movies cause violent crime too so lets just ban them too. If I thought Bush had violated the Constitution I would be all for impeaching him.
You can't really be so naive as to believe criminals will turn in their weapons if they are banned. I got a lot of handguns and simi autos and have never had anything more serious than a traffic ticket in my life. Short of a Constitutional amendment or me becoming a felon I am not giving up my stuff. You really think someone who uses a gun to commit crimes is going to?
No I don't think criminals will readily turn their weapons in, but I think the idea is to make less guns available to those who will misuse them. This is more than about criminals... Guns are also the cause of many accidential deaths, which I would say 80% of the time are by handguns. I'm not arguing your right to have a gun..but why do you need an arsenal or cache of weapons? What is the purpose?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Ok, you can laugh, call me slow. You can quote anyone and pick out only parts if you wish, but my piont was not to do that...
Thats why I posted the compleat amendment.
A person today would read that amendment and be confused. What is a malitia ? Is that saying I have the right to have a gun ? You can claim that the admendment has nothing to do with a military. That it is somehow addressing only an individuals right to keep any weapon they choose,
but you must look at the compleate article and period it was written....look at the Articles of the Confederation. It clearly states what a malitia was and how and when it could/should be used......
""....but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage....""
This is what the people at the time were used to. They were decideing to ratify the Constitution that gave the Feds a strong military with the President being Commander and Cheif and had their conserns...what about their malitias?
The amendment adresses the malitias, its the first thing mentioned in the amendment. It is why it was written. Why are they addressing the malitias? Because they are aggreeing with the people, its " necessary " and they said so.....what are they saying that they are going to do about the malitias ?? not allow the Feds or States, buy law, to take them away.....
So, where are those necessary malitias today? Today it has little relevance.
I want agree, but you can claim that you are the malitia. We all are the malitia, but then you must as I said earlier, agree that you can be regulated. The word is there, you cant ignore it. Do you think that criminals or the insane should be allowed to keep guns, if not, then you agree with regulations, It is one and there are many more today as well. Is it possible that they could outlaw all guns? yes. Will they? Most likly not. Because the people want allow that IMO. They are part of what we are. Can this change ? yes, it is changeing. Sorry.
No Founding Federal Governing documents actually address the individual's right to keep guns that I know. Thats why goverments ( Federal, States, Cities if states allow ) can make gun laws as they choose. The courts dont strike most of them down.
Its not rather I want gun laws now or if you dont ever, its about rather enough of us do or dont whenever.
Now, this brings me back to Obama and what the people want. Who they choose to vote for and why. If his beleif that gun control may help with crime and enough people agree and vote for him. Then he as President, can sign a gun law if Congress passes one again. He can persade Congress to do so again. He cant make a gun law by himself. And the courts most likely would let it stand again, because theres nothing Im aware of to prevent that. If you dont agree, then dont vote for him.
Im not a lawyer or a judge nor am I against guns, BTW. I own one myself. I dont have a problem with people who want to keep certain guns. I just dont agree with people trying to misrepresent the Constitution when IMO, thats what there doing. Thats why I posted the compleat article when someone earlier, IMO, also did that.
So with all that said... you don't think Bush/Cheney "misrepresented" the Constitution?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Ok, you can laugh, call me slow. You can quote anyone and pick out only parts if you wish, but my piont was not to do that...
Thats why I posted the compleat amendment.
A person today would read that amendment and be confused. What is a malitia ? Is that saying I have the right to have a gun ? You can claim that the admendment has nothing to do with a military. That it is somehow addressing only an individuals right to keep any weapon they choose,
but you must look at the compleate article and period it was written....look at the Articles of the Confederation. It clearly states what a malitia was and how and when it could/should be used......
""....but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage....""
This is what the people at the time were used to. They were decideing to ratify the Constitution that gave the Feds a strong military with the President being Commander and Cheif and had their conserns...what about their malitias?
The amendment adresses the malitias, its the first thing mentioned in the amendment. It is why it was written. Why are they addressing the malitias? Because they are aggreeing with the people, its " necessary " and they said so.....what are they saying that they are going to do about the malitias ?? not allow the Feds or States, buy law, to take them away.....
So, where are those necessary malitias today? Today it has little relevance.
I want agree, but you can claim that you are the malitia. We all are the malitia, but then you must as I said earlier, agree that you can be regulated. The word is there, you cant ignore it. Do you think that criminals or the insane should be allowed to keep guns, if not, then you agree with regulations, It is one and there are many more today as well. Is it possible that they could outlaw all guns? yes. Will they? Most likly not. Because the people want allow that IMO. They are part of what we are. Can this change ? yes, it is changeing. Sorry.
No Founding Federal Governing documents actually address the individual's right to keep guns that I know. Thats why goverments ( Federal, States, Cities if states allow ) can make gun laws as they choose. The courts dont strike most of them down.
Its not rather I want gun laws now or if you dont ever, its about rather enough of us do or dont whenever.
Now, this brings me back to Obama and what the people want. Who they choose to vote for and why. If his beleif that gun control may help with crime and enough people agree and vote for him. Then he as President, can sign a gun law if Congress passes one again. He can persade Congress to do so again. He cant make a gun law by himself. And the courts most likely would let it stand again, because theres nothing Im aware of to prevent that. If you dont agree, then dont vote for him.
Im not a lawyer or a judge nor am I against guns, BTW. I own one myself. I dont have a problem with people who want to keep certain guns. I just dont agree with people trying to misrepresent the Constitution when IMO, thats what there doing. Thats why I posted the compleat article when someone earlier, IMO, also did that.
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.
When you read that you read that the right to carry an arm is so it can be used in military operations? Only?
I

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
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.
When you read that you read that the right to carry an arm is so it can be used in military operations? Only?
I
Nope, Ive tried to make it clear that, IMO, that amendment does not give an individual the " right to carry an arm " or to take it away. Not then or now.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
No I don't think criminals will readily turn their weapons in, but I think the idea is to make less guns available to those who will misuse them. This is more than about criminals... Guns are also the cause of many accidential deaths, which I would say 80% of the time are by handguns. I'm not arguing your right to have a gun..but why do you need an arsenal or cache of weapons? What is the purpose?
Why does someone need a motorcycle capable of going faster than 65MPH?