Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
]Perhaps (go out on a limb and guess a little bit) the complaint about Obama is that he IS complaining that he is being constrained.Ratcheting up pressure for Congress to limit access to guns, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that recent steps by Colorado to tighten its gun laws show “there doesn’t have to be a conflict” between keeping citizens safe and protecting Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.
“I believe there doesn’t have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities,” Obama said in Denver, where he stepped up his call for background checks for all gun purchases and renewed his demand that Congress at least vote on banning assault weapons and limiting access to large-capacity ammunition magazines.
“There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights,” he said.
...
Obama also spoke about the people who say the government is coming after their guns.
“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”
Then you would be as poor a psychic as you are a poor debater. The President never complained that he is being constrained by the US Constitution.
rtfq
read the fucking quote(s), not a Wingnut's distortion
Dainty, you imbecile, quotes come with attribution. Or they should.
Thankfully, your usual sloppiness did not prevent me from tracking down the quoted material you just threw out without attribution. I found it at the Blaze. Obama: Gun Control Won?t Lead to Confiscation Because ?I Am Constrained by a System Our Founders Put in Place? | TheBlaze.com
A little additional digging led me to a tape of his speech at the police academy in Denver yesterday: President Barack Obama says "no conflict" in reconciling new gun laws with gun rights - The Denver Post
So now, I do not have to read isolated snippets of what he said to see whether the claim that the President was "complaining" is fair and accurate or not.
In fact, I can even direct you to the portion of the tape (using the included time-marker). It is right around the 43 minute mark.
Having done that, I can even suggest that you are partly right on this one, Dainty. Fuck. I know; it shocks me too. The claim in the Blaze that he was "complaining" -- in this instance -- about the Constitutionally imposed constraints appears, to me at least, to be inaccurate.
While I may not fully agree with what he's saying, I am more than happy to acknowledge that his comment that he (and lawmakers, generally) are "constrained" by the Constitution appears NOT to have been a "complaint." It was said more by way of reassurance directed against those opposing what he is supporting.
He has had a history of making comments suggesting complaints about what the Constitution does "not" do. But this time doesn't seem to be one of those times.
Which takes me back to what I said before. I am not troubled by his correctly noting that he is constrained.
(Next up I will have to correct you yet again for your abject ignorance and dishonesty regarding the 3/5ths compromise and what it meant and why it was entered into. But for now, I'll let you temporarily bask in the recognition that, even though you did it ineptly, you did make a valid point about what the President said in Denver.)
Has it ever occurred to morons like you that the even many of the people who ratified the US Constitution admitted the Constitution is a flawed document?
The Southern states used the Constitution to keep the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people to own and trade in Slavery?
And the way to fix said document is via amendments, not Supreme Court Roluette.
The inital constitution did not really protect slavery, it tolerated it and took it into account with respects to representative count.
then on page 2, post #28, Dante posted a link to a Wikipedia page with actual quotesDistinction with a difference? Have to get back to you here.
By initial constitution, do you mean the Constitution before any amendments?
Why Dante says the US Constitution protected the owning and trading of slavery is the fact that only in County Courts of Common Pleas in Massachusetts, the Territorial Court in Oregon State, and State Supreme Courts in the USA did the Federal Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and the Slave Trade lose challenges.
The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.
Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
Dainty, you imbecile, quotes come with attribution. Or they should.
Just ban bullets. Bullets don't enjoy any constitutional protection, it's the right to bear arms, not bullets.
Just ban bullets. Bullets don't enjoy any constitutional protection, it's the right to bear arms, not bullets.
cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...
Dainty, you imbecile, quotes come with attribution. Or they should.
The quote was in the article linked by the OP
Nice work Sherlock
I agree - your adolescent bleating is very simple-minded.Very simple really.
You lose credibility when you swing and miss so badly. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made, why not stick to those?
"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..." "Do you agree to these facts or am I in error?" - http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-b...-gun-control-in-the-americas-and-america.html
The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.
"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..." "Do you agree to these facts or am I in error?" - http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-b...-gun-control-in-the-americas-and-america.html
Indeed, early in our history, the regulations were aimed at insuring people had arms, with a few minor exceptions, relating to laws prohibiting slaves and even free blacks from having arms. Some laws prohibited the storage of gunpowder in homes as a fire safety measure.
Following the civil war, a rash of laws were passed regulating guns... most of these were in the South and had as its purpose the intent to disarm newly freed blacks. In cattle towns of the west, there were special laws which were aimed at disarming the cowboys who arrived in town driving a herd of cattle. "Deadlines " which seperated the "good part" of towns from the redlight and saloon districts where these transient cowboys frequented and were required to surrender their weapons before entering... these laws were only enforced as against the transient cowboys and had no applicability to the townsfolk who retained their arms.
The racially motivated laws served as the basis for modern gun control laws in the US, with the primary goal to disarm the poor and minorities. Thus laws against "Saturday Night Specials" were to insure that minorities could not afford firearms.
What is clear is that those racially motovated laws have no place in our society any more than laws mandating segregation, the fact that they existed in the past is not a justification for allowing them now, any more than the fact that we had drinking fountains for whites only in the past is not justification for them now. Laws which iimpose a financial burden on ownership disproportionally impacts the poor and minorities. I am not an absolutist and believe that the 2nd like other rights is not absolute... but just because it is not absolute is not the same as saying any and all restrictions are valid. To the contrary, and just like other rights, laws dealing with 2nd amend rights must be jstified by heightend scrutiny or strict scrutiny criteria.
And ammo is indeed covered by the 2nd, notwithstanding claims made by recent graduates of the Chris Rock School of Law and Bar and Grill..
Chris Rock on Gun Control - YouTube/url]
The 2nd Amend protect the right to have fully functionally arms. A case cited with approval in Heller is Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871).. it held as follows:
The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.
Anything else you wish to know?
Dainty, you imbecile, quotes come with attribution. Or they should.
The quote was in the article linked by the OP
Nice work Sherlock
If you are quoting The Mister Peabody of USMB, I must protest. He is infamous on the subject of American History!
The quote was in the article linked by the OP
Nice work Sherlock
If you are quoting The Mister Peabody of USMB, I must protest. He is infamous on the subject of American History!
I am quoting Obama as quoted in the article linked by OP
Your lack of comprehension skills isn't my problem kid.
The boy king doesn't like that he just can't do whatever he wants.
Comprende ese?
I agree - your adolescent bleating is very simple-minded.Very simple really.
You lose credibility when you swing and miss so badly. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made, why not stick to those?
Your lack of comprehension skills isn't my problem kid.
The boy king doesn't like that he just can't do whatever he wants.
Comprende ese?
I agree - your adolescent bleating is very simple-minded.
You lose credibility when you swing and miss so badly. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made, why not stick to those?
and yet his quote doesn't indicate his aversion to that system. But I'll I'll take your word for what he really intended to say.
You didn't at all understand the quote.Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.
Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?
Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.
Yeah. Sure I didn't.
Expalain specifically what I got wrong, and how.
Your lack of comprehension skills isn't my problem kid.
The boy king doesn't like that he just can't do whatever he wants.
Comprende ese?
I agree - your adolescent bleating is very simple-minded.Very simple really.
You lose credibility when you swing and miss so badly. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made, why not stick to those?
Well no.
The Constitution classified black people as 3/5ths of a human being.
Along with some other niceties..
So what? The Constitution was amended and the problem was solved.
Which is more than can be said about the Bible. Slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
Slavery in the Bible
I only asked if you agreed with a question.
btw, It is my understanding that in colonial America, the recognized authority regulated arms and ammo because of the natives as well as the slaves, so Americans have historically recognized the right of the authorities to regulate arms and ammo.
Just ban bullets. Bullets don't enjoy any constitutional protection, it's the right to bear arms, not bullets.
cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...
"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..." "Do you agree to these facts or am I in error?" - http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-b...-gun-control-in-the-americas-and-america.html
I only asked if you agreed with a question.
My area of expertise Dante. so I tend to be verbose.
btw, It is my understanding that in colonial America, the recognized authority regulated arms and ammo because of the natives as well as the slaves, so Americans have historically recognized the right of the authorities to regulate arms and ammo.
The regulation which you speak was to require every household to have firearms, Dante.
I am aware of no gun regulations which restricted firearms to the free white population... to the contrary, ownership was actively encouraged and often mandated.
cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...
"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..." "Do you agree to these facts or am I in error?" - http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-b...-gun-control-in-the-americas-and-america.html
Dante if you are a person who has no reason to be barred from owning a gun but don't have any bullets because they are now banned.....what good is the gun?.....have your rights to own that gun now been infringed?......without bullets what good is that gun?....
