Obama and Oprah...

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
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.
Explain to me where in the second amendment it places a single condition on the right to keep and bear arms? It dosen't limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia which was specifically able bodied males up to the age of 50. It grants the right to "the people".
It is simple to learn the intent of the amendment through the writings of many of those who were responsible for it. I gave you a small sample in the last post. Many favored a Militia because they never wanted us to have a standing army. You think they would have granted a limited right when they held that view? Several also wrote of the need for an armed population to prevent the government from becoming tyranical.
I don't think certain guns should be held by civilians either but handguns and simi autos are not among them. I think what needs to happen is a constitutional amendment needs to be created with the imput of Gunowners of America and the NRA. Spell out exactly what is and isn't allowed. Both groups are a lot more reasonable than the media reports.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
.....regulated. The word is there, you cant ignore it.
I have said already, that the second amendment gives the people the right to have a regulated malitia, thats all it does.
Laws will be made by the elected representatives as they feel their constituents desire. Or they may not be re-elected. This is also what the constitution says.
I think many people think Congress has been listening to the gun owners and the NRA too much as it is and perhaps thats one reason why many were not re-elected in the last election.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I have said already, that the second amendment gives the people the right to have a regulated malitia, thats all it does.
Laws will be made by the elected representatives as they feel their constituents desire. Or they may not be re-elected. This is also what the constitution says.
I think many people think Congress has been listening to the gun owners and the NRA too much as it is and perhaps thats one reason why many were not re-elected in the last election.
You are like a dog chasing its tail now

" 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. "
Where does it say people have the right to form a militia? What is a more important question is why would it? The militia was aready authorized in section 1 article 8 of the constitution. What it says is that because a militia was needed, and because people in the militia needed to have a gun to fight with, the right of the people to have guns could not be taken away.
Once an amendment is passed it becomes part of the constitution. Any law or right granted remains in force unless another amendment is passed repealling it.
You might also want to look at the records of a lot of those Democrats elected last time. Many were pro second amendment folks and NRA members

 

[triga22]

Wow, I havent checked up onto this thread until now. Its come a long way.

 

[dogstar]

"" Where does it say people have the right to form a militia? ""
See all of my above post on the subject, The second Amendment.
"" What is a more important question is why would it? The militia was aready authorized in section 1 article 8 of the constitution. ""
I disagree that that is an authorization. Nowhere does it say a state shall or must or can have one. ( as clearly as in the Articles of the Confederation. ) It does however place a lot of control of the malitias to the Feds at the time. Only Congress could call for them. Again see my above post on the subject.
At the end of section 1, artical 9, same document, " No State shall, without the consent of Congress...keep troops....in time of peace...."
As in my above post, the people, at the time, reading this for the first time, were concerned, confused, unsure, scared about what powers the Feds would have over or could do with or to their malitias. According to the proposed Constitution, many of the people thought Congress would have the power to take them away at will.
So...thus, the Second Amendment.
""....records of a lot of those Democrats elected last time. ""
I have not said anything about the different political parties myself. Are you suggesting something ??

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
"" Where does it say people have the right to form a militia? ""
See all of my above post on the subject, The second Amendment.
"" What is a more important question is why would it? The militia was aready authorized in section 1 article 8 of the constitution. ""
I disagree that that is an authorization. Nowhere does it say a state shall or must or can have one. ( as clearly as in the Articles of the Confederation. ) It does however place a lot of control of the malitias to the Feds at the time. Only Congress could call for them. Again see my above post on the subject.
At the end of section 1, artical 9, same document, " No State shall, without the consent of Congress...keep troops....in time of peace...."
As in my above post, the people, at the time, reading this for the first time, were concerned, confused, unsure, scared about what powers the Feds would have over or could do with or to their malitias. According to the proposed Constitution, many of the people thought Congress would have the power to take them away at will.
So...thus, the Second Amendment.
""....records of a lot of those Democrats elected last time. ""
I have not said anything about the different political parties myself. Are you suggesting something ??
I am still waiting for you to show ANY clause in the second amendment that grants the right to form a militia. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Where is that are you finding a right to form a militia? I have seen some pretty silly arguments used by the anti gun crowd but nothing as rediculous as that. You may be so desperate for it not to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but it's there in all its glory.
And again, if it had been intended that arms were only possessed for service in the militia why does the rest of the second amendment grant the right to the "People" rather than able bodied males of age? James Madison wrote the amendment, read his views on the right to keep and bear arms.
""....records of a lot of those Democrats elected last time. ""
I have not said anything about the different political parties myself. Are you suggesting something ??
No, you were suggesting people had not been re-elected because they listened to gun owners too much. I pointed out that a number of those elected to replace the incumbants were themselves in fact supporters of the second amendment.

 

[dogstar]

reefraff, I have answered the same question several times. Ive tryed to have a respectable conversation with you about my thoughts here. I know I cant convince you and you have not convinced me.
However you have now IMO, labled me as anti gun crowd after I have given no indication of such and earlier posted that I am not against guns and own one myself and gave the reason of participateing in the thread. You have used the words silly, desperate and rediculous to what I have said. You have the right to say things like this if you choose, I have choose not to make those types of remarks. Im going to choose not repsond with you any more in this thread because I feel it will only escalate your insults toward me and also because the subject is somewhat off topic.

 

[reefraff]

The point you are attempting to argue is rediculous. I have heard arguments supporting the notion that the second amendment granted a collective rather than individual right to own guns that at least had plausable points to be debated. I didn't lump you in with the anti gun crowd. I said they don't even go to the extreme you have in claiming the second amendment granted the right of the people to form a militia. Sorry if you take offense.

 

[rylan1]

Educate yourself........
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.".....

This is an article I found today, which supports Obama's views and my own in regard to the flawed justice system and the death penalty. I'm sure there are many innocent people who have been killed as a result of cases like this.
"Chatman's nearly 27 years in prison for aggravated sexual assault make him the longest-serving inmate in Texas to be freed by DNA evidence, Innocence Project lawyers said.Texas leads the country in prisoners freed by DNA testing. Including Chatman, the state will have released at least 30 wrongfully convicted inmates since 2001, according to the Innocence Project".

 

[rylan1]

I bumped this because the Iowa Caucus is currently taking place. The last I saw the polls showed in the Des Moines paper the following:
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 22%

 

[reefraff]

I don't have a problem with his stance on the death penalty. Wheather or not I agree with it it is a reasonable position. We are getting to the point now where very few death penaly cases out there remain where DNA has yet to be used.
So I assume you think Obo is going to hang on for the win? I think Edwards is gonna get kicked in the teeth, the beast and Obo will be close with Edwards eating dust

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
I don't have a problem with his stance on the death penalty. Wheather or not I agree with it it is a reasonable position. We are getting to the point now where very few death penaly cases out there remain where DNA has yet to be used.
So I assume you think Obo is going to hang on for the win? I think Edwards is gonna get kicked in the teeth, the beast and Obo will be close with Edwards eating dust

I'd have to believe that there are a good # because of the back log of stuff in a crime lab. I'm sure new cases take priority and people can spend 15 yrs or so on death row.
It will be interesting... I have followed the race a little... and an interesting question came up... Who is the democrates #2 person? Meaning who is their second choice b/w Edwards, Clinton, and Obama?
I would say that for Edwards' supporters would choose Obama as their #2 if he concedes. I also believe Obama would get more support from the other candidates who concede than Clinton would. The thing with Clinton is either you love her or hater her. Not many people have her as a second choice if their candidate fails.
So as the votes come in... the results from Iowa may cause people to abandon their candidate and go for their second choice if it appears their #1 has little or no chance.

 

[reefraff]

What happens in the caucuses is a candidate that doesn't pull 15% can encorage their people to vote for another candidate. Biden and Richardson both encouraged their peeps to go with Obo, Looks like the Hillerbeast will come in 3rd. That is a huge defeat for her and it looks like the dems are going to have a war to try to throw a wrench into the Clinton machine. Should be interesting.

 

[rylan1]

I was very impressed with Obama tonight... His speech was great and in listening to it I must admit it gave me a sense of hope and optimism. I have said for a while now that I am in favor of him,but after following what happened tonight, and the media reporting on all fronts from CNN to FOXNEWS...it is clear to me that he is the best candidate to take the USA into the future and not only to restore it, but also bring us closer together.

 

[darthtang aw]

Bring us closer together? Obama is liberal as hell....excuse my french. Not a single conservative will consider him a good thing.
While he is better than hilarbeast and edwards, that isn't saying much...the democratic candidats keep going further and further left, while the conservatives are the ones coming to the middle....bring this country together? Your top 3 candidates couldn't get a puzzle to come together with their views.
Also will some explain to me how this country needs restoring?
I will say this, I watched them tonight, and of all the speeches, Obama is the ONLY one that I got a feeling he was sincere and meant what he said...even if I disagree with his views.
Hilary, what can I say, you took third chick and you give a speech as if you won....Try getting your husband to act like he supports youy instead of pointing at the pretty girls in the crowd and smiling at them...
edwards.............................the guy has nice hair.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Bring us closer together? Obama is liberal as hell....excuse my french. Not a single conservative will consider him a good thing.
While he is better than hilarbeast and edwards, that isn't saying much...the democratic candidats keep going further and further left, while the conservatives are the ones coming to the middle....bring this country together? Your top 3 candidates couldn't get a puzzle to come together with their views.
Also will some explain to me how this country needs restoring?
I will say this, I watched them tonight, and of all the speeches, Obama is the ONLY one that I got a feeling he was sincere and meant what he said...even if I disagree with his views.
Hilary, what can I say, you took third chick and you give a speech as if you won....Try getting your husband to act like he supports youy instead of pointing at the pretty girls in the crowd and smiling at them...
edwards.............................the guy has nice hair.

We do need restoring... America has lost value and values. Our postition in the world has changed, our economy has changed, our morals have changed, our belief in our government has changed.... all to the negative. And as far as views go... Obama is consistant. Hilary's political attitude is to do what is popular. But all the conservative..liberal east west left right... all that is crap. It's division is what it is. I don't care about that... I care about who I feel has the best opportunity to make our lives better, and I think that is Obama. We in America need a change in leadership and thinking. Your so called "conservative" will keep things as the status quo.. because isn't that what to conserve means? You must admit... Obama is inspirational and evokes enthusiasm unlike anything we've seen in a long time.

 

[m0nk]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
We do need restoring... America has lost value and values. Our postition in the world has changed, our economy has changed, our morals have changed, our belief in our government has changed.... all to the negative. And as far as views go... Obama is consistant. Hilary's political attitude is to do what is popular. But all the conservative..liberal east west left right... all that is crap. It's division is what it is. I don't care about that... I care about who I feel has the best opportunity to make our lives better, and I think that is Obama. We in America need a change in leadership and thinking. Your so called "conservative" will keep things as the status quo.. because isn't that what to conserve means? You must admit... Obama is inspirational and evokes enthusiasm unlike anything we've seen in a long time.
I agree with this... especially when it comes to our standing in the world. No amount of force is going to get other countries (countries whose support we ask for constantly) to respect us. We also can't be the world's police, no matter how much Bush and Co. want that to happen, especially on the limited amount of tax they hope to pass off to the middle class, without taxing their upper-crust buddies. This country overall needs a good fixing, and that's not going to happen with another conservative in office, imo. I generally don't like to get into debates on politics, but just felt the need to say that Obama is the only one that isn't all about politics as usual (same with Ron Paul, on the Republican side), and playing a new game of politics is the only way we can reverse the damage that has been done over the past 7 years.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by m0nk
I agree with this... especially when it comes to our standing in the world. No amount of force is going to get other countries (countries whose support we ask for constantly) to respect us. We also can't be the world's police, no matter how much Bush and Co. want that to happen, especially on the limited amount of tax they hope to pass off to the middle class, without taxing their upper-crust buddies. This country overall needs a good fixing, and that's not going to happen with another conservative in office, imo. I generally don't like to get into debates on politics, but just felt the need to say that Obama is the only one that isn't all about politics as usual (same with Ron Paul, on the Republican side), and playing a new game of politics is the only way we can reverse the damage that has been done over the past 7 years.
Completely agree, the new game of politics is being brilliantly orchestrated by Obama. Huckabee is also doing a fair job. I think these 2 do the best when it comes to relating to the common person or middle class. Edwards would be a distant third. As I mentioned their speeches lastnight tells a lot about their campaign and what they seem to be about. IMO the GOP is in a bit of disary, with no real clear agenda. The same can be said about the Clinton camp. It seems Edwards main goal is to beat Clinton, which kinda leads me to believe an Obama/Edwards ticket could be the winning ticket.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
We do need restoring... America has lost value and values. Our postition in the world has changed, our economy has changed, our morals have changed, our belief in our government has changed.... all to the negative.

Ok, let's go with this.
Which values has this country lost?
What was our position before and how has it changed?
What morals have changed?
Just so I can get an understanding of what you believe obama would correct. To be honest I don't see a single democrat that preaches values. atleast not true values but hollow ones.
Every democrat that I have heard (with the exception of Hilary) has said they will pull our troops out of Iraq. Now that the surge has worked and violence is way down, that country is on it's way to stabilization is this smart? Afghanistan violence is going up a bit, would they move the troops there? I have heard very little talk about Afghanistan from the democrats, yet this seems to be ever democrats gripe that we stopped looking for Osama in Afghanistan and went to Iraq. Yet this is not a focal poit for the democratic party. Sorry Terrorism is real and is an issue, but nothing from that side of the aisle deals with this from what I have heard.
I believe the belief in the government has changed since Reagan....so I have to agree with you there.
What has Obama said that makes you think the values of america will be restored?
All I have heard is pull the troops out and raise taxes. Oh and alternate fuel sources.....The guy can speak though and doesn't make me cringe when he does like hilary does.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
We do need restoring... America has lost value and values. Our postition in the world has changed, our economy has changed, our morals have changed, our belief in our government has changed.... .
That needs further discussion...
Lost values and morals? You think Obama and the Democratic party have the values and morals that our country was founded on? If so I respectfully ask you step away from the Cool Aid

Our position in the world has changed. Terrorists attacked us 7 times during Clinton's watch. They attacked us once during the current Admin.... Korea secretly built nukes in the 90's, the Taliban grew in power in the 90's, Pakistan had a military coup in the 90's, etc. Indeed our position in the world has changed. After 8 years of letting the world push us around we stepped up and said "Enough". And don't give me the "all the world hates us" rhetoric either. Foreign investors are buying vacation homes in the USA in record numbers. France and Germany both recently elected Pro-American leaders, etc.
Our economy definitely changed. EVERY American is paying less taxes per dollar, and the federal tax revenue is at an all time high.