Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen more | General Headlines | Comcast:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says gun-control advocates have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes in the debate over firearms in America.
In an interview with The New Republic, Obama says he has "a profound respect" for the tradition of hunting that dates back for generations. "And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.
Obama has called for a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and is pushing other policies following the mass shooting last month at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. In response, gun-rights advocates have accused Obama and others of ignoring the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
The president says it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting. "So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes," he says.
Just who is it, not listening?
My goodness! Is it possible that he has not been made aware by his Gun Czar that almost every state in the Union is a "Shall Issue" state? And
that this is a CONTINUING process?
Has it not even occurred to him to ask WHY states (and individual citizens .. of whom he is the presumptive leader) are so strongly coming out in support of the right to carry a concealed weapon? Doesn't he recognize that this is entirely caused by the common citizenry who have not only lobbied for, but DEMANDED to defend themselves against predators?
(And, of course, a government running wild. We're not there, and I hope we never find ourselves 'there'; but that IS the reason for the Second Amendment!)
Obama is not stupid. Inept .. well .... I'll give you that one. Maybe. Inexperienced, ill-advised, and a lot of other "I-words" which I will not suggest here because they may be interpreted as being
Insulting to the office of the President of the United States of America.
Disingenuous? Absolutely!
Obama is not unaware of the unrest in Red-State America. He knows that there is a strong drive for autonomy in the states, and a similarly powerful outrage in defense of our Constitutional freedoms.
He has taken this opportunity, and this tactic, to distance himself from the RKBA issues by blandly 'supporting' the rights of "his" citizens to continue their traditional "hunting rights".
By doing so, he has obviated the concept that the Second Amendment protects military arms ... firearms which may be used for non-hunting purposes.
(As often as I disparage Wikipedia, they have a very nice
summary of 2nd Amendment history. I recommend it as a starting point for your own research.)
In
US v Miller, the court essentially disallowed the possession of a 'sawed-off shotgun' because it could not be proven (no defense was offered!) that a similar weapon was a "military arm". Had Miller offered a defense, he could have shown that "trench guns" were a common personal arm during WWI in the trenches; sawed-off shotguns were, and are, a military weapon. But because of the lack of a defense, and the testimony to that effect was not offered by the (absent) defendant, the court had no alternative but to find for the State.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."[140] As the Court explained:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense
(Emphasis added)
Essentially, the court ruled that military arms .. or firearms which were similar to military arms ... were defended by the Second Amendment. No other arms --- certainly no 'civilian' arms ... were defended. Why were the terms "
. in the absence of any evidence.." and "
.. cannot say ..." included
? That is because the judge recognized, and lamented the lack of defense, because Miller skipped the state before the trial. Thus, he failed to offer a defense .. which would have been accepted by the judge, and would have formed an entirely different precedence in American Canon Law. Bummer!
Thus, your Remington .270 may not be defended by the 2nd Amendment. However, your Remington .30-06 MAY be defended, because both the Garand and its predecessor the 1903 Springfield used that caliber. The Garand may not be applicable to your Remington; but the 1903-A3 is a shoulder-fired bolt-action rifle in that same .30-06 caliber, so it is conceivably justifiable as a military arm.
Your Remington Model 1100 in 12 guage is iffy .. but if you cut off it's barrel to match the WWI Trench gun .. hey! It's a Military weapon .. a Trench Gun!
Get the picture?
Obama .. does not.
In fact, he is ignoring the entire concept of the Second Amendment. Deliberately.
Personally, I have no problem with a President lying to me. Reagan did it all the time. I lost respect for him, but I 'understood' the whole "
Iran/Contra" thing.
[I say this with tongue in cheek; nobody REALLY understood the twisted legal tactics employed by both sides in the extended affair. Interpret my semi-facetious assertion to mean that I recognized the Reagan administration's intent to accomplish a "private goal" to undermine communist aggression in South America to be merely a logical extension of the Madison Doctrine, which "... stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention."]
Obama's game plan has nothing to do with the elements of Reagan's "I Miss-spoke" Iran/Contra hearings. Obama is just acting dumb so he can ignore the essential elements of the Second Amendment.
It's rude, it's insulting to intelligent Americans, and that insult is compounded by the obvious implication that either (a) we are so stupid that we won't notice what he is doing, or (b) we are so insignificant that our opinion doesn't matter.
I never much liked Barack Obama, either as a President or as a man. But I have never been so personally insulted as I am now by his regal suggestion that the Second Amendment has been included into the Constitution of the United States of America so we could go kill a dear for dinner.
What does he think he is? Is he a King ruling over a bunch of Nimrods, or Dimwads?
I do fear for the future of this country, when an elected President can so thinly conceal his calumny under the guise of ignorance .... and enough of our citizens care so little for the constitution that they seem to accept his facade of ignorance without comment.
