Quotes From Clinton And Obama About Guns

Amazing. What a way with words these two have.

“So we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.”

How about letting the law abiding citizens, who have done nothing wrong, be able to purchase a gun without all of the restrictions that she would like to put on them. So that we may be able to protect ourselves when guns, no matter what laws are on the books, do end up in the wrong hands.

Don’t let these two fool you people. They aren’t even close to being individuals who support gun rights. They are far from it, and if elected, will do everything in their power to pass more gun-restrictive legislation.

Put these two fools on Al’s iceburg!

Let’s try Obama’s comments modified slightly:
As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to [b]free speech[/b]. 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, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

I wonder how well that would go over.

Just because you freedom lovers got your Constitution and all its rights dosen’t mean us Marxists can not come along and invent some un-Constitutional Communitarian rules for the betterment of the marxist culture we invision for the future.

Put these two on the iceberg with Gore and sink it.

Bill,

I would have to say that slight modification would probably go over without a squeak. Our first amendment rights are also under fire, and are constantly working to be eroded as well. The first may not receive the constant attacks that the second does, but we all need to be vigilant of our right and do everything to protect them, in my opinion, especially the 9th &10th.

Bill,

Some limits have always existed on the First Amendment, just as you wrote. For example, “Don’t shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater”, don’t commit libel or slander, etc.. We recognize those limitations as part of the Social Contract that protects us all.
However, I do take exception with Barak Obama’s use of the phrase “the Constitution confers an individual right”. Properly, the Constitution “recognizes” or “acknowledges” a preexisting right. As a Constitutional scholar, he should have known better.
That said, I still think Barak is our best bet, but that is JMHO, YMMV.

Amen Reed, Amen.

Surely you do not mean Obama as a Constitutional Scholar ? I’m not sure who got slandered a Constitutional Scholar ? or Obama, who obviously is a Socialist Marxist Communist and hater of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. We have no Constitutional Scholars in Congress, surely you were jesting. Every thing these men do is to undermine our Freedom and Liberty. You want to protect the 2nd Amendment? Then start reminding your Congressmen about the Efficiancy of the Militia Bill H.R. 11654 of June 28, 1902, other wise known as the 1902 Dick Act which invalidates all so-called gun-control laws, and divides the militia into three distinct and seperate entities. Orrin Hatch used it in 1982, Our Presidential Candidates are alarmingly silent about such laws, especially the Liberal ones. Or excuse me those Marxist ones like Traitor Barrack Obama.

Reed:
You can shout fire in a theater if you want to. Doing so IS protected, the problem comes if there is no fire and people rush out resulting panic and potentially injury. At that point you have violated the rights of others, making it no longer protected. Ditto for libel and slander, they violate the rights of others making them not protected.

The difference is that when it comes to the 2nd amendment, my possession of a weapon does not impact you or infringe your rights in any way, therefore my ability to posses a weapon should not be subject to restriction other than the moral code on when it use is justifiable(ie murder vs. self defense)which is independent of the second amendment.

That said, you are correct that the constitution only recognizing rights that predate and transcend human government. If you do not recognize this fundamental tenet, you do not believe in rights, only privileges.

Bill,

Arguing “Natural Law” I would certainly agree with you that your possess of anything which, in itself, doesn’t injure me is your “right”. However, we are not under Natural Law, rather we have implicitly or explicitly (depending on whether we have ever sworn allegiance to the laws of the US) accepted a social contract. We have done this because, while it is your natural right to have a homemade large-scale nuclear device in your basement, we don’t think every basement owner is as trustworthy as you. Thus we decide that for our common protection we will all forgo assembling destructive nuclear devices and biological weapons for home protection. One small loss of a “right” for the common good. How you wish to extend this metaphor is up to you.

You will note that the question seems to always revolve around the “right to bear arms”. What are arms? At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was believed that the US could never have a standing army that could defeat a militia of the people – probably very true at the time since the military weapon was restricted to simple firearms, grenades, and cannon. Now, of course, with an air force, a Federal force can strike from a distance and effectively remove entire cities. It is unlikely that a militia could do much to protect against such damage (I’m not overlooking a resistance movement, just that no deterrent capability any longer exists in private hands).

Greg, there is no 1902 Dick Act. There is a 1903 act know as the Dick Act, but it is different than the original 1902 House Bill and has no bearing, so far as I can discern, on the right to bear arms.

I am following you completely. The only issue I take with your argument (and it is a common one)is that if the technology of the time is all that we consider the constitution to cover, then all other amendments, not just the 2nd, are in trouble. That means freedom of the press only applies to archaic printing methods and the internet and phone are most certainly not protected form of communication, etc. That takes the discussion down a very dangerous and scary path that I don’t think anybody wants to go.

Likewise, the government itself should be limited to consideration of only those “things” (for lack of a better word) and activities which occurred during the founding of the country. I am quite sure this is most certainly not an area anyone in government would like to take the debate.

In short: If I am restricted to a musket, then the government terminate all newspapers and TV news agencies as they are not operating within the context of the 1st amendment. Likewise, all laws regulating any technology developed after 1787 should be stricken from the books. I could go on, but I think everybody gets the point.

Bill,

What is known as the “intentional fallacy” would have it that the authors’ intent in writing is irrelevant, only the words themselves must be considered. I assume that you would agree with this. I believe, of course, that the words themselves are paramount; however, the courts are necessary for the interpretation of those words… and the courts use precedent, logic, and an analysis of the authors’ intent.

I am not a court, I just muddle along.

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902. Congressional Record, House, Pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as the Dick Act of 1902, written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.

Recognized by Chairman Orrin Hatch during the Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 1982. It was the “Right to keep and Bear Arms Report”, of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. And Orrin Hatch used it to defeat anti-gunners during those debates. Soundly.

Of course its ignored and swept under foot, after reading these Congressional Globes I see why.

Also fully recoginized by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court and in his personal writings. The Commies don’t expect us to go digging that deep, well surprise surprise, many of us do. I wonder what these socialists sitting in the Supreme Court will come with in June, Time will tell. If it is any thing less than the definitions in the Dick Act then they are traitors.

Reed:
Yeah, I agree.

Greg Farber:
It is known as the dick act of 1903, although it may have been passed in 1902. Kind of like the John Warner Defense Act of 2007 was passed in 2006.

Greg,

You said:

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902. Congressional Record, House, Pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as the Dick Act of 1902, written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.

I think you are confusing Bills and Acts. There was a House Bill such as you reference and at one point it divided the militia into three categories. However, once it had passed through all House and Senate committees and open votes, it designated two categories of militia and had the mention of gun laws removed. The National Guard Association and the War Department both gave spirited input into the law. It was signed into law on Jan. 21, 1903 (obviously, it passed Congress earlier, as you note). It popularly goes under the name of its sponsor as the Dick Act of 1903.

House Bills have no force of law, so the references to the Congressional Record, while interesting as a footnote in history, have no substantive value. The changes from the initial proposal to the final draft were tremendous – indicating Congress’ negative opinion of the measures you mentioned. So the actual signed Act stands as an affirmation, if you will, of the gun control laws extant at that time.