Obama on Gun Control

[iDIDurGF04]

* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)

* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

[Cooter]

oh noes, the pres-o-dent writes the laws! :rolleyes:

[Slowhand]

oh noes, the pres-o-dent writes the laws! :rolleyes:

You're clearly missing the big picture. He may not write the laws, but he provides leadership and direction for our government. Combine his zeal for constitutional violations with the current congress', and you've got a gun possession issue.

[Sgt Beavis]

You're clearly missing the big picture. He may not write the laws, but he provides leadership and direction for our government. Combine his zeal for constitutional violations with the current congress', and you've got a gun possession issue.

While you are correct, Obama also stated in an interview that while he would like to implement new gun control laws, he understands that he won't be able to get his way on gun control.

The Democrats are stupid, but not politically suicidal. The Assault Weapons Ban almost directly cost them control of Congress in the '90s. They aren't going to try that again. I doubt Obama can get any of it through even a Democratic controlled congress. Also, a lot of Democrats in the congress are very much pro gun when compared to the congress in the '90s.

In other words, he may want it, but he ain't gettin' it.

[Who Needs 8]

You're clearly missing the big picture. He may not write the laws, but he provides leadership and direction for our government. Combine his zeal for constitutional violations with the current congress', and you've got a gun possession issue.


Anyone who base their vote for president on issues like Gun Control and Abortion are voting for the wrong reasons. They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis


Stare decisis: Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts. (via the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

[Cooter]

Anyone who base their vote for president on issues like Gun Control and Abortion are voting for the wrong reasons. They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis

EXACTLY!!!

my wife and her friend were talking about voting for Obama because of the abortion thing, and I said, "Well, that's pretty typical... women are usually single-issue voters that vote on an emotional topic that has no true bearing on their lives. The abortion law isn't ever going to be overturned."

[David]

There's more things in life to worry about than gun control.

[Who Needs 8]

EXACTLY!!!

my wife and her friend were talking about voting for Obama because of the abortion thing, and I said, "Well, that's pretty typical... women are usually single-issue voters that vote on an emotional topic that has no true bearing on their lives. The abortion law isn't ever going to be overturned."


I also love it when a Presidential candidate brings up Education or Teacher Pay. Uh, excuse me? Isn't that a State issue that the executive office of the Federal Government has no control over? But the majority of American's who refuse to understand government will vote based on their own ignorance.

[Magnus]

I think people miss why those issues mean so much.

It's not the fact that guns may be taken away or babies may be killed via gas chamber, it's the fear of the train of thought that an individual has when they think those are good ideas. What other ideas will come to fruit as they serve their term?

[Cooter]

I also love it when a Presidential candidate brings up Education or Teacher Pay. Uh, excuse me? Isn't that a State issue that the executive office of the Federal Government has no control over? But the majority of American's who refuse to understand government will vote based on their own ignorance.

or even taxes! Like EITHER tax program will go through as the original draft/proposal! :rolleyes:

[Cooter]

I think people miss why those issues mean so much.

It's not the fact that guns may be taken away or babies may be killed via gas chamber, it's the fear of the train of thought that an individual has when they think those are good ideas. What other ideas will come to fruit as they serve their term?

exactly, but who are you arguing with? :confused:

those who support gun-grabbing were already voting for Obama...

and those who support the 2nd amendment were already voting for McCain

those who are undecided are fucking morons and should be pistol whipped, so they're probably going to side with the person that might outlaw pistols so that they can't be pistol whipped with them

[Who Needs 8]

I think people miss why those issues mean so much.

It's not the fact that guns may be taken away or babies may be killed via gas chamber, it's the fear of the train of thought that an individual has when they think those are good ideas. What other ideas will come to fruit as they serve their term?

Wow, you couldn't be so wrong.

The GREAT CONSITITUION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will not allow for a Dictator, no matter how much you want to think it will.

No matter what ideas a President wants to pass, Checks and Balances always prevail.

[slow06]

I only have a second so forgive my lack of backup but:

While you are correct, Obama also stated in an interview that while he would like to implement new gun control laws, he understands that he won't be able to get his way on gun control.

He may not get it all at once, but they will take things away little by little.


The Democrats are stupid, but not politically suicidal. The Assault Weapons Ban almost directly cost them control of Congress in the '90s. They aren't going to try that again.

Another Assault Weapons Ban has already been introduced.

[Sean88gt]

Anyone who base their vote for president on issues like Gun Control and Abortion are voting for the wrong reasons. They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis


Stare decisis: Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts. (via the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

The court basing decisions is based on the make up of the court. The POTUS has a direct effect on who gets a seat.

The greater part of the gun vote issue is a matter of trust. Does the government trust me to regulate my life and make decisions to buy weapons, or do they not trust me?

[Magnus]

Wow, you couldn't be so wrong.

The GREAT CONSITITUION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will not allow for a Dictator, no matter how much you want to think it will.

No matter what ideas a President wants to pass, Checks and Balances always prevail.
Who said anything about a dictator?

Crap will "change" so slowly, that before you know it, we're another Canada or Uk. Yay.

No. :(

Of course it's a stretch, but it all has to start somewhere.

[Who Needs 8]

or even taxes! Like EITHER tax program will go through as the original draft/proposal! :rolleyes:

Taxes are the issue most directly connected to the Execuative Office of the Federal Goverment.

In case you didn't know (Not you directly Coot, but for everyone else), the President of the United States writes the Budget, which then has to be passed by Congress. And that means your Taxes.


But the sad fact of the matter is that Americans Are STUPID (yes, I'll include myself) and vote for emotion, that being Abortion, Guns, and WORST OF ALL: RACE AND NAME SIMULARITIES!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Sgt Beavis]

Another Assault Weapons Ban has already been introduced.


Introduced is a VERY VERY LOOOOOOONG way from becoming a law. Anyone in Congress can introduce a bill. There ARE a few nuts like Kucinich (sp?) who will introduce stuff like that on a daily basis.

[Who Needs 8]

Who said anything about a dictator?

Crap will "change" so slowly, that before you know it, we're another Canada or Uk. Yay.

No. :(

Of course it's a stretch, but it all has to start somewhere.


Such a stupid stretch because I don't think you understand that Canada and the UK are parlimentary systems and you don't know the difference.

But, much like you, I'm on a jumping to conclusions mat.

[Vertnut]

Anyone who base their vote for president on issues like Gun Control and Abortion are voting for the wrong reasons. They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis


Stare decisis: Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts. (via the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Who do you think picks the supreme court judges? :confused: WAKE UP! The president DOES matter, and DOES have a bearing on these issues.

[67camino]

Who do you think picks the supreme court judges? :confused: WAKE UP! The president DOES matter, and DOES have a bearing on these issues.
DING DING DING we have a winner.

[HookEm]

So, how did we get Roe v Wade, since obviously the SCOTUS had no play in it.....


Anyone who base their vote for president on issues like Gun Control and Abortion are voting for the wrong reasons. They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis


Stare decisis: Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts. (via the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

[Who Needs 8]

Who do you think picks the supreme court judges? :confused: WAKE UP! The president DOES matter, and DOES have a bearing on these issues.

DING DING DING we have a winner.


And you're STILL OVEREACTING to something so rare.

A president doesn't pick all nine during his term like his cabinet . . . genius.

Lets look at the 2008 Presidental Supreme Court Justice Nomination Scoreboard:
Ford - 1 in 4 years out of 9 justices
Carter - 0 in 4 years out of 9 justices
Reagan - 2 in 8 years out of 9 justices
G.H.W. Bush - 2 in 4 years out of 9 justices
Clinton - 2 in 8 years out of 9 justices
G.W. Bush - 2 in 8 years out of 9 justices

And again, CHECKS AND BALANCES: Congress has to approve the Justices.

G.W. Bush was lucky to be in term to name a Chief Justice, which isn't going to open back up anytime soon.


This is why I say Gun control and more importantly Abortion will not be changed in our life time: Because you have to wait out the life time of each Justice that wrote or agree with a Judgement. In the best example, look at Segregation . . . it only took around 40-50 years to overturn that by the time the former slave owner Justices were dead.

[Vertnut]

And you're STILL OVEREACTING to something so rare.

A president doesn't pick all nine during his term like his cabinet . . . genius.

Lets look at the 2008 Presidental Supreme Court Justice Nomination Scoreboard:
Ford - 1 in 4 years
Carter - 0 in 4 years
Reagan - 2 in 8 years
G.H.W. Bush - 2 in 4 years
Clinton - 2 in 8 years
G.W. Bush - 2 in 8 years

And again, CHECKS AND BALANCES: Congress has to approve the Justices.

G.W. Bush was lucky to be in term to name a Chief Justice, which isn't going to open back up anytime soon.


This is why I say Gun control and more importantly Abortion will not be changed in our life time: Because you have to wait the life time of each Justice that wrote or agree with a Judgement. In the best example, look at Segregation . . . it only took around 40-50 years to overturn that by the time the former slave owner Justices were dead.
By all accounts, at least 2 will be replaced in the next 4 year term. Please use common sense when you try to argue adult subjects. :cool: Goddammit!

[AL P]

Anyone who base their vote for president on issues like Gun Control and Abortion are voting for the wrong reasons. They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis

Bullshit.

Your position looks great on paper. You don't think simply passing legislation makes for de facto gun control?

How long did the DC gun ban stand before the Supreme Court shot it down?

The laws don't have to go through the Supreme Court to take effect. They can be in effect for a decade before they are removed.

[Who Needs 8]

Bullshit.

Your position looks great on paper. You don't think simply passing legislation makes for de facto gun control?

How long did the DC gun ban stand before the Supreme Court shot it down?

The laws don't have to go through the Supreme Court to take effect. They can be in effect for a decade before they are removed.

I didn't say it's works swiftly . . . we all know that it doesn't.

But you people keep thinking that this goverment is going to collapse the day a BLACK MAN is elected president. FACE IT.

ALL I'M SAYING is no matter who is elected, much like in the last 219 years of the Executive Office, the government will still WORK (the same as it always has).

[Sean88gt]

If the congress picks up liberal seats, and has a socialist president then they will have their choice of what crazy they want on the court.

[Who Needs 8]

If the congress picks up liberal seats, and has a socialist president then they will have their choice of what crazy they want on the court.

HOLY SHIT . . . by that stupid comment, I'm guessing that you don't vote in mid-term elections in your district for represenative and senate.

[Sean88gt]

HOLY SHIT . . . by that stupid comment, I'm guessing that you don't vote in mid-term elections in your district for represenative and senate.
I absolutely vote in every election.

Explain how it is a stupid statement instead of being completely obvious.

And it is representative, dumb ass.

[Vertnut]

I absolutely vote in every election.

Explain how it is a stupid statement instead of being completely obvious.

And it is representative, dumb ass.
Any time I want to boost my ego and feel like a "mental giant", I just look for posts' from this guy or Gpamp... :p

[Who Needs 8]

I absolutely vote in every election.

Explain how it is a stupid statement instead of being completely obvious.



Again, it's only obvious if you choose govern wearing the "emotion glasses".

[Sean88gt]

Again, it's only obvious if you choose govern wearing the "emotion glasses".

What?? Is this what an A&M education buys?!

[1fastdem]

Vertnut - You are correct. It is possible the next POTUS will appoint 2 justices in the next term and probable if the next president serves 2 terms. If McCain is elected you would assume he'd appoint two 'conservative' justices swinging the court from a conservative split court of 5-4 to solid 7-2 conservative majority. Roe v. Wade would be up in the air and gun rights would remain strong. If Obama is elected you'd expect him to appoint 'liberal' judges. And the 5-4 court would remain. And I'd expect it to be as now with Roe v Wade left unchallenged and gun rights remaining strong.

In all reality I can't believe McCain isn't hitting this harder in the ads to his base. The first time in a generation that the SC would be solidly conservative is at hand.

PS - The Dems would have to have a 60 seat majority in the Senate to dictate the SC pick.

[Vertnut]

Vertnut - You are correct. It is possible the next POTUS will appoint 2 justices in the next term and probable if the next president serves 2 terms. If McCain is elected you would assume he'd appoint two 'conservative' justices swinging the court from a conservative split court of 5-4 to solid 7-2 conservative majority. Roe v. Wade would be up in the air and gun rights would remain strong. If Obama is elected you'd expect him to appoint 'liberal' judges. And the 5-4 court would remain. And I'd expect it to be as now with Roe v Wade left unchallenged and gun rights remaining strong.

In all reality I can't believe McCain isn't hitting this harder in the ads to his base. The first time in a generation that the SC would be solidly conservative is at hand.

PS - The Dems would have to have a 60 seat majority in the Senate to dictate the SC pick.
McCain admitted that he would NOT pick a candidate based on Roe v. Wade, but by their wisdom and ability to "interpret" the constitution. I believe him, too. He did himself no good saying that, considering he's looking for the "conservative" voter's approval.

[Sean88gt]

Vertnut - You are correct. It is possible the next POTUS will appoint 2 justices in the next term and probable if the next president serves 2 terms. If McCain is elected you would assume he'd appoint two 'conservative' justices swinging the court from a conservative split court of 5-4 to solid 7-2 conservative majority. Roe v. Wade would be up in the air and gun rights would remain strong. If Obama is elected you'd expect him to appoint 'liberal' judges. And the 5-4 court would remain. And I'd expect it to be as now with Roe v Wade left unchallenged and gun rights remaining strong.

In all reality I can't believe McCain isn't hitting this harder in the ads to his base. The first time in a generation that the SC would be solidly conservative is at hand.

PS - The Dems would have to have a 60 seat majority in the Senate to dictate the SC pick.
Keep in mind that elected republicans suffer from a lack of balls, so a 55-45 majority would get the job done;)

[1fastdem]

Keep in mind that elected republicans suffer from a lack of balls, so a 55-45 majority would get the job done;)

Not on SC justices. They'd filibuster and go down as heroes to the party. Any senator wanting the Rep nod in 2008 would have to be a part of it. The Dems would need the 60 seats to break it.

[1fastdem]

McCain admitted that he would NOT pick a candidate based on Roe v. Wade, but by their wisdom and ability to "interpret" the constitution. I believe him, too. He did himself no good saying that, considering he's looking for the "conservative" voter's approval.

His work as part of the Gang of 14 speaks to this. But I think if he appointed 2 judges to 'interpret', at least 1 would be 'conservative' enough for the right.

Don't you just love the code speak on this issue. constructionist, liberal, conservative, activist, etc.

[Vertnut]

His work as part of the Gang of 14 speaks to this. But I think if he appointed 2 judges to 'interpret', at least 1 would be 'conservative' enough for the right.

Don't you just love the code speak on this issue. constructionist, liberal, conservative, activist, etc.
I can't argue that... :cool:

[Sean88gt]

His work as part of the Gang of 14 speaks to this. But I think if he appointed 2 judges to 'interpret', at least 1 would be 'conservative' enough for the right.

Don't you just love the code speak on this issue. constructionist, liberal, conservative, activist, etc.
I agree with you.

In hindsight, the founding fathers should have written everything in a way that interpretation wasn't needed. But I'm fairly sure they had no idea how dumb this country would have turned out.

1st Amendment: Let people say what they want, believe what they want and print what they want - so back off.

2nd Amendment: Guns are needed because you assholes are reading this right now, so fuck off.

etc

[HOOCBB]

sig check


that's all I have to contribute to this thread at the moment...

[1fastdem]

I agree with you.

In hindsight, the founding fathers should have written everything in a way that interpretation wasn't needed. But I'm fairly sure they had no idea how dumb this country would have turned out.

1st Amendment: Let people say what they want, believe what they want and print what they want - so back off.

2nd Amendment: Guns are needed because you assholes are reading this right now, so fuck off.

etc

:D

[Jimi Gs Big Brother]

I saw a cool bumper sticker today. It went somthing like " if OBAMA gets elected he can have my guns........ Bullets first! NOBAMA 08. :D

[AL P]

I didn't say it's works swiftly . . . we all know that it doesn't.

But you people keep thinking that this goverment is going to collapse the day a BLACK MAN is elected president. FACE IT.

ALL I'M SAYING is no matter who is elected, much like in the last 219 years of the Executive Office, the government will still WORK (the same as it always has).

You said:

"They don't understand that the Supreme Court will not allow any drastic changes to these issues in our lifetime because of a little thing called precedent and Stare decisis"

That has nothing to do with a black man being elected. What the hell kind of tangent is that anyway?

The fact is that the Supreme Court is not involved in the legislative branch outside of policing the end result. As my original post said, it is entirely possible to have legislation put into place that is unconstitutional and have it stand for years.

Not only that but you have also failed to mention that the decision on the DC handgun ban was a split decision. Look it up. You only need to change one judge on the right side of that opinion.

[mopar63]

By all accounts, at least 2 will be replaced in the next 4 year term. Please use common sense when you try to argue adult subjects. :cool: Goddammit!

Stephen Gerald Breyer (born August 15, 1938) (age 70)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 15, 1933 (age 75)
Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) (age 72)
Antonin Gregory Scalia (born March 11, 1936 (age 72)
John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) (age 88)

Maybe more than 2 if they go by the standard they have established by McCain's age.

And as far as gun control they have already started by establishing new laws/ new regulations on where factories that produce ammo can be built / operated. But it's all in the name of "public safety" (wow, all the sudden they are concerned) so you are screwed in the head if you don't think the ground work is not being laid. Once a right is gone it's gone.