1919 A4 Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In today’s Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries).

"At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: 'There's a Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I've got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably -- it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That's what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that's a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families.'

Then came the pivot: 'Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don't think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?'

In conclusion: 'There is a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected that is not mutually exclusive with making sure that we are shutting down gun traffic that is killing kids on our streets. The argument I have with the NRA is not whether people have the right to bear arms. The problem is they believe any constraint or regulation whatsoever is something that they have to beat back. And I don't think that's how most lawful firearms owners think.' "

My comment: Pull down your trousers, bend over, and get set for January 2009.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
It's just typical politician doublespeak. He's trying to say things that will appeal to both sides of the fence. When you look closely at it, he really says nothing. He knows there's an important voting block that's pro 2nd amendment, so he throws a few constitutional-sounding phrases their way. And he knows that there are people panicking about school shootings, so he throws a few safety-sounding comments their way. He hints that there are reasonable levels of control, but avoids saying what they might be. When he says
... for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?
He might mean that the system already in place can handle that (which is what he wants pro-gunners to hear) or he might mean gun registration (which is what he wants anti-gunners to hear). But as a slick politician, he avoids getting pinned down to a clear statement of intent.

I don't see this statement as being either pro- or anti-, just typical evasive political noise. Unfortunately, I haven't heard better from the other major contenders yet.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
No double speak here, he answered the question like the anti-gunner he really is.
He revealed the anti-gunners conclusion, that they have conceded that SCOTUS will rule on the side of gun owners. At least let's hope that will happen. So, what future president obama has done is position himself to deal with that ruling. He, they, will still work at getting local control over gun ownership, as it is now, around the country.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top