Obama: Government can constrain the exercise of rights. WTF?

[Bobarian]

Obama is quoted saying this during last night's debate:

"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. 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," he said.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Hey Jeff,
A typical portrait of a (Racist) who hates Whites, Jews and other Non-BLT members.

Obuma would make a far better Shoeshine boy, than either a senator or a president.

The smug look on his face reminds me of the the black militants that I enjoyed putting in jail.

Any person who would vote for this fool is either a mad man or woman or a complete self serving loathing POS.

Respectfully,
NSNR

[PGalt]

Inalienable right and its necessary corollary BUMP!

[MrB]

Not sure where you’re coming from.

I don’t believe that such a “right” exists as it infringes on the life of another person.

You may be pushing Obama’s “logic” back on him in a sarcastic manner, but I’m not clear on it.

[Kitanis]

I am always hearing from the left that George Bush has trampled our constitution and our rights..

Well from that statement.. Obama will take the constitution, stick it up our arse.. and light it on fire...

[bamahead]

Isn’t it liberals who are always stating that states rights are a ‘myth’?

[bamahead]

PING.

[DManA]

It is awkward for the PRO-ABORTS. Extending their logic about the right to own guns leads you to the awkward (for them) conclusion that the state has a perfect right to regulate, even eliminate, the “right” to an abortion.

[theBuckwheat]

I am reminded that the person who seizes control of the meaning of words has seized control of the debate topic.

During orals for Heller, on Justice, I think Stevens, mused that the Court was free to insert the word “unreasonable” into the restraining clauses, this transforming the Second Amendment into shall not be unreasonably infringed, and the First into shall not make any unreasonable law.

Amendment by redefinition. Chilling and shameful.

[Jeff Head]

Obama's associations tell us all we need to know about the man.

Bill Ayers of the terrorist weatherman underground, unrepentant bomber.

Rezco, corrupt financere and tied to crime and terror.

Jeremiah Wright, hater of America (even if he once was a US Marine - I got news for Obama, Benedict Arnold was once a certified American hero before he went bad so don't try and pass off the US Marine thing as a pass for his hate) and an absolute Black Liberation militant,

Louis Farakahn, radical Islamic leader and another hater of America,

The New Black Panther Party ('nuff said),

Hamas, who now endorses Obama and hopes he wins so that the US attitude toward their operations (meaning abject radical Islamic Jihad and terror) will improve.

...and the list goes on.

Obama is the apex of the face of the enemy within.

I AM WHO I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.

THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY

[RonF]

You have a right to free speech. But you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (unless there actually is one). You have a right to freely exercise your religion. But if your religion requires you to kill those who are unwilling to convert, you cannot exercise it in that respect.

Yes, the government has a right to constrain your exercise of certain rights. The question is whether or not Sen. Obama supports constraints that have an objective other than keeping you from bringing immediate harm to someone else.

[MrB]

My second undeniable truth about liberalism is that

“liberals” do no promote ANY freedoms except those related to consequence free sexual behavior choices,

in all other issues, they choose the side of totalitarian control.

[Muleteam1]

>>"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. 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," he said.<<

And just because Article II of the Constitution established the Office of the President, whose to say we need one?

[ravingnutter]

Now, now...let’s not get bitter ; )

[tennteacher]

Just the beginning.

I paraphrase: Someone’s going to take a piece of your pie so that someone else can have more.

Scary stuff.

[ctdonath2]

He was trying to frame the immediate issue in terms that some people, who would otherwise approve of BHO’s comment, would better understand.

That doesn’t mean that the poster believes that particular right exists. A rhetorical technique is to re-phrase issues in terms that are meaningful your opponent, even if they are not meaningful to you.

[DManA]

They want government in every room of your house - except the bedroom.

[ctdonath2]

The issue is that he uses variations on “reasonable regulations”, which while sounding like something we can all agree on, really mean something radically different to different people. Our side almost never calls the other on what they mean by “reasonable”, never asking what principles lead to such regulations.

[MrB]

Thanks, he cleared it all up at #27

[SoFloFreeper]

Yup. And much of the modern day thinking along that line was because of a guy named Feingold and his buddy:

Feingold and McCain wrote a law SPECIFICALLY restricting political speech.

[MrB]

Great point. Excellent response for lefties saying “keep the gov’t out of our bedrooms”.

Well, how about the bathroom? We have FEDERAL (show me in the Constitution where this one is) laws mandating how much water we can use to flush, for crap’s sake!

The kitchen? Trans-fats anyone?

Every room with a light bulb?

(Got more, FReepers?)