I am a bitter gun owner...

[sheadakota]

I rarely post here let alone start a thread, but this is driving me crazy- Drivng today I must have seen a dozen of these signs in connection to The Macain/Palin campaign- Explain to this very unpolitical person what being a 'Bitter gun owner' has to do with anything?

[whistlelock]

It's all based around "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

the specific signs are probably in relation to the NRA campaign against Obama using that quote as a launching point.

http://www.nraila.org/actioncenter/grassrootsactivism.aspx?id=68

[Williebee]

Bitter guns shoot lemon juice?

"You're gonna burn somebody's eye with that thing!!!"

[mscelina]

Hit it in one, whistlelock.

In other words, it's a campaign ploy to make gun owners believe that if Obama were elected their Second Amendment rights would be negatively affected.

[Rolling Thunder]

Hit it in one, whistlelock.

In other words, it's a campaign ploy to make gun owners believe that if Obama were elected their Second Amendment rights would be negatively affected.

Yes. Except, from what I remember reading, Obama supports private ownership of guns under the second amendment. Machine guns and that ilk, maybe not so much; which I, as a gun owner, don't have a problem with.

[Jimmyboy1]

It's from a statement Obama made during the primaries.
I believe it was from a speech given in San Fransisco.


Here's the audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA&feature=related

[mscelina]

Yes. Except, from what I remember reading, Obama supports private ownership of guns under the second amendment. Machine guns and that ilk, maybe not so much; which I, as a gun owner, don't have a problem with.

He does. Although his second amendment platform isn't that expansive, his stance is...and I quote:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/additional/#sportsmen
Sportsmen

Barack Obama did not grow up hunting and fishing, but he recognizes the great conservation legacy of America's hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport. Were it not for America's hunters and anglers, including the great icons like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, our nation would not have the tradition of sound game management, a system of ethical, science-based game laws and an extensive public lands estate on which to pursue the sport. Barack Obama and Joe Biden recognize that we must forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America's hunters and anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition.

His full plan for second amendment rights can be found here. (http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf)

[odocoileus]

It's from a statement Obama made during the primaries.
I believe it was from a speech given in San Fransisco.


Here's the audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA&feature=related

Not a speech, no.

A statement made at a private dinner party.

[sheadakota]

Ah, well then, that explains it- thanks! I don't follow things as closely as I guess I should, and this one had me scratching my head. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Takvah]

Just Obama being elitist and trying to explain away why small town America doesn't get him. It's more than NRA propaganda to people that don't live in the cities. It's a reminder of how Obama dismisses them as paranoid and stupid.

[Monkey]

Or not.

Some of us read what he said and don't get that idea at all, Takvah.

[Takvah]

Or not.

Some of us read what he said and don't get that idea at all, Takvah.

You don't say. :D

[Don]

He does. Although his second amendment platform isn't that expansive, his stance is...and I quote:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/additional/#sportsmen
[b]His full plan for second amendment rights can be found here. (http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf)
That's not really a stance on the second amendment, other than how it applies to hunters. Not one word mentioned about self-defense. Hunters still have access to rifles in England, but I don't think that's a version of second amendment enforcement I'd be pleased with. I'd have to see way more than this to consider him a friend to gun owners.

[mscelina]

That would be his entire stance on the issues of the Second Amendment according to his website. I searched as many keywords as I culd think of and kept getting directed to the same .pdf. There are some notations from campaign speeches too but I didn't link to those. I was trying not to slant my opinions onto the answer the OP asked for. However, that being said, I agree with you.

[Jimmyboy1]

Thank you, Takvah.
True, this quote meant/means far more than any specific reference to guns. I watched him make similar statement on Charley Rose. Exceedingly condescending, elitist.

But that's Barack. No secret there.

[Don]

That would be his entire stance on the issues of the Second Amendment according to his website. I searched as many keywords as I culd think of and kept getting directed to the same .pdf. There are some notations from campaign speeches too but I didn't link to those. I was trying not to slant my opinions onto the answer the OP asked for. However, that being said, I agree with you.
I went searching on his website too, and found nothing else. To me, that sends up a huge red flag. As I said, England's support of hunting is not what I consider enforcing the second amendment.

I'll have to do so other research. From what I've gathered casually, we're likely to have a less gun-friendly legal environment in four years, regardless of whether the joker or the clown wins.

[whistlelock]

This is what I think of as an Excuse Issue. It's the issue you use to explain why you're going to vote the way you were anyway.

It's not a vote for the other guy so much as a vote against that guy.

[cethklein]

Yes. Except, from what I remember reading, Obama supports private ownership of guns under the second amendment. Machine guns and that ilk, maybe not so much; which I, as a gun owner, don't have a problem with.

I think machine gnus are a moot point anyway. To legally own one even now you have to practically part the red Sea. even something as simple as an IMI Uzi can cost upwards of $4000 after forms and licenses.

[Takvah]

Guns are not an excuse issue. People are passionate on the issue. This is like saying, Roe v. Wade is an excuse issue.

[MarkEsq]

Thank you, Takvah.
True, this quote meant/means far more than any specific reference to guns. I watched him make similar statement on Charley Rose. Exceedingly condescending, elitist.

But that's Barack. No secret there.

Right. Better to ignore his stated position and instead read what you want into a one-off comment.

And I, for one, am about ready to have someone elite in the White House. Eight years of mediocrity has been plenty.

[Takvah]

What's his stated position on guns? People are addressing it here and not finding it to be any more comforting. Further, there are people that feel that unbridled immigration is killing this country... so he implies people are paranoid because they hold that belief? Really? Sounds like a position to me.

[tiny]

This is what I think of as an Excuse Issue. It's the issue you use to explain why you're going to vote the way you were anyway.

It's not a vote for the other guy so much as a vote against that guy.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Gun ownership is important to a great deal of people in this country so them voting for the side who's not for limiting it is hardly an excuse. They may be uninformed about what Obama's intentions are regarding guns, but that doesn't make it an excuse. Just makes them uninformed.

[maestrowork]

And I, for one, am about ready to have someone elite in the White House. Eight years of mediocrity has been plenty.

Ditto, my brother.

[Clair Dickson]

I don't see the elitism in the quoted portions here. I read it as an acknowledgement of something that people do, even though he doesn't.

Am I am elitist because I don't eat at McDonald's-- even though I understand that lots of people enjoy the food? If so, great. I always wanted to be elite-- my income has never afforded me that status. ;-)

But seriously, can someone slowly, patiently explain to me how the stated (quoted) words show elitism? Perhaps there's a connotation I'm missing-- the denotation seems pretty even-handed to me. Help me out. (And I'm not after gun rights discussion, just an explanation of elitism.)

[tiny]

Right. Better to ignore his stated position and instead read what you want into a one-off comment.

And I, for one, am about ready to have someone elite in the White House. Eight years of mediocrity has been plenty.

To be fair, in front of the cameras people are more likely to attempt to say the things others want or expect to hear. In private they are more likely to say how they really feel... though I think it's completely unfair to put anything private out there for all to see when it was not meant to be up for public consumption. It's too easy to take things like that out of context.

[Don]

This is what I think of as an Excuse Issue. It's the issue you use to explain why you're going to vote the way you were anyway.

It's not a vote for the other guy so much as a vote against that guy.
For some people, it's certainly a disqualifying issue. It's one of the many reasons I won't be voting for either of the Republicrats. This link (http://www.lneilsmith.org/) (scroll down) has an excellent essay devoted to the subject.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?


He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.


Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

[donroc]

Of course, what makes some of you think that elitist you want elected is not looking down upon you? :rolleyes:

[Takvah]

Of course, what makes some of you think that elitist you want elected is not looking down upon you? :rolleyes:

And elitist has nothing to do with ELITE either.

[maestrowork]

Of course, what makes some of you think that elitist you want elected is not looking down upon you? :rolleyes:

Who cares if he does? I want the person to lead the country and the world, and not someone to drink beer and shoot pool with me.

Anyway, I don't think Obama looks down on people less fortunate than he is anyway. There's no evidence that he does. Thus the whole "elitist" argument really doesn't hold up for me. So what if he likes to eat at nice restaurants and drink wine and not shop at Wal-Mart? Shoot, I'm an elitist, too, I guess.

Besides, it's McCain who has so many houses that he doesn't even know how many. I don't think he'll be drinking beer with me any time soon either.

[Jimmyboy1]

An "elitist" is not someone who owns multiple houses or has hundreds of millions.

An "elitist" could be dirt poor.

An "elitist" is a legend... in his/her own mind.

[Clair Dickson]

Well-- I guess I *am* an elitist. I think I'm a legendary writer. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world is subjected to my greatness. ;-)

But what in the posts/ quotes on Obama's stance on the 2nd Amendment suggest elitism?

[Joe270]

Just Obama being elitist and trying to explain away why small town America doesn't get him. It's more than NRA propaganda to people that don't live in the cities. It's a reminder of how Obama dismisses them as paranoid and stupid.

This was the the issue. The implication is that rural Americans are 'clinging' to outdated ideologies and not as 'enlightened' as those in the cities. Those poor backwoods hicks are ignorant and backward, while we are the light, the shining beacon of enlightened thought is pretty much what I get out of the statement.

That's why you see those signs, because the conservative portion of rural America didn't like the comment.

It has absolutely nothing to do with gun control, although the Obama campaign has tried to make it about that so he can squeak out of it.

Same with the Ayers link, which has real implications of Obama's fundamental views of the USA, if he's inspired by those who hate the US so much that they'd involve themselves in domestic terrorism. Coupled with a wife who says she's 'never been proud of American until now' and a preacher who says 'God damn the US', that's pretty nasty stuff.

The democrats toss up the Keating five in response, which makes no sense to me. I see it as an apples to oranges comparison at best. Keating was a constituent of McCain's, and it is a representatives job, whether in the house or senate, to hear and assist their constituents. McCain was cleared of wrongdoing in the case.

[Celia Cyanide]

Of course, what makes some of you think that elitist you want elected is not looking down upon you? :rolleyes:

I don't really care.

I think anyone who has been president, or set his/her sights in the White House, during my life time, probably thinks s/he is better than me. I'm a B-movie actress and a pinup model. Yes, the president probably looks down on me. I don't care.

I care about issues, not attitude. Like Ray said, I'm not looking for someone to hang with. I've got enough of that.

[Clair Dickson]

Okay-- after listening to the clip, I STILL don't see how what he said suggests that he thinks himself better than anyone. But I'm dense that way.

I'm also a from a small midwest town in a state that has been hemorrhaging jobs for years before the rest of the country, I have to agree that there are people who are so frustrated with the situations they've ended up in that they seem to only be able to focus on one or two issues-- they can't see the big picture and they don't care about anything more than whether this president will take away their guns or whatever their pet issues is. These people exist-- I've had them in class, known them, worked with them. They can only talk about one aspect of a politician or issue (and usually, sadly, only in sound bites and commercial clips...)

Give me the words-- the phrases, the sentences that mean "elitism"? I'm still not seeing it. "Cling?" "Religion" I see no inherent connotation of elitism in Obama stating that some people in some places cling to certain things out of frustation. But that might just be because I think it's a valid statement. Of course, I have to watch what I say around people because I can't win versus soundbites.

[III]

This was the the issue. The implication is that rural Americans are 'clinging' to outdated ideologies and not as 'enlightened' as those in the cities. Those poor backwoods hicks are ignorant and backward, while we are the light, the shining beacon of enlightened thought is pretty much what I get out of the statement.

That's why you see those signs, because the conservative portion of rural America didn't like the comment.

It has absolutely nothing to do with gun control, although the Obama campaign has tried to make it about that so he can squeak out of it.


I totally agree, Joe. Putting aside "do I want someone who thinks they're better than me in the White House", I think this is an objective interpretation of what Obama was implying. He was just being condescending and stereotyping when he thought he could get away with it. Certainly doesn't make him unique among politicians, but it doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd ammendment either. I'd like to have a president who's better than me, but I'd also like to think he doesn't call me a douchebag behind closed doors.

[Higgins]

That's not really a stance on the second amendment, other than how it applies to hunters. Not one word mentioned about self-defense. Hunters still have access to rifles in England, but I don't think that's a version of second amendment enforcement I'd be pleased with.

Doesn't the second ammendment in England refer to a need for each man to "hew himself down a bough?"

and a bitter gun owner

shall never vanquish'd be until
Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill
Shall come against him.

[Higgins]

For some people, it's certainly a disqualifying issue. It's one of the many reasons I won't be voting for either of the Republicrats. This link (http://www.lneilsmith.org/) (scroll down) has an excellent essay devoted to the subject.

Why in the name of Mortimer Mosin-Nagat is the word "infantile" charged with such deliciously ideological meanings here? What happened to coddling? Did it run out of ideological steam? How long will "infantile" sound really bad?

As in thanks to Montgomery's infantile plan of landing the 23rd Army Group in Normany, the fully adult nazi armies were driven into a pocket and annihilated by the infantile armed forces of the allied powers.

Now that was infantile.

[Monkey]

So, this guy who was a community organizer is apparently an elitist...

Does this version of being an "elitist" mean that he doesn't care about people different from himself? Does it mean that he won't work in the best interest of the people? Because, to me, that kind of clashes with the work he's done in the past.

If it's just "I think he thinks he's better than me..." it's a weak attack at best.

[Don]

Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners (http://www.reason.com/news/show/128973.html) at Reason.com offers more information about Obama's stance, and what it may mean in votes.

As a state legislator, Obama voted against a bill shielding people who use handguns for self-defense in their homes from prosecution for violating local gun registration rules. Most tellingly, Obama has repeatedly expressed support for local handgun bans such as the District of Columbia's, which the Supreme Court overturned, and Chicago's, which faces a constitutional challenge.

"What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," Obama says. The line, meant to reassure gun owners, highlights his peculiar view that the extent of an American's constitutional rights depends on where he lives.

[Takvah]

Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners (http://www.reason.com/news/show/128973.html) at Reason.com offers more information about Obama's stance, and what it may mean in votes.

Wow that explanation won't fly for people that are hot and heavy about guns and personal protection.

[Jcomp]

Who cares if he does? I want the person to lead the country and the world, and not someone to drink beer and shoot pool with me.

A-bleeping-men.

As far as guns go... eh. I wouldn't mind owning one--though it's probably best that I don't. (Almost bought one at the start of the new year... but the Xbox 360 won out... though I still find myself doing a lot of shooting anyway...). And I don't think it's really practical at this point to enforce gun restrictions. People will own their guns. They love their guns. They vote for guns.

For me it's not that critical either way.

[Jimmyboy1]

Obama's "work" as a "community organizer", imo, had absolutely nothing to do with helping people. He was building his political base. (see Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky) Follow the trajectory, which is clearly laid out for anyone to see except in the MSM.

I know you know better, Monkey.

His statement at the SF dinner party, Charley Rose's show..,all point to the same thing. It's subtle, but very, very clear. It's called "secular humanism".

Obama was, along with one of the most self-aggrandizing elitists ever in Charley Rose, casting aspersions on the po folk who have been "not so lucky at life's lottery". He claimed these people cling to their guns and religion, and in his words and ti\one sounded like an adult speaking about children. The condescension was so thick you could cut it with a knife.

As the Brit rep said of him, he's "aloof". Translation: not better than you or me, but "better" than everyone. He is, after all, "the one".

Gak.

[Higgins]

Obama's "work" as a "community organizer", imo, had absolutely nothing to do with helping people.

This is like saying Napoleon's "work" as "Commander of the army of Italy" had nothing to do with defeating the Austrians.

Organizing people is in fact a matter of political power. Or to put it another way "reality" has almost nothing to do with "ideology"...

In reality power comes out of organizing people and even if I say
"power" comes out of "organizing people"...it remains true.

[Christine N.]

An "elitist" is not someone who owns multiple houses or has hundreds of millions.

An "elitist" could be dirt poor.

An "elitist" is a legend... in his/her own mind.

Speaking from experience? ;) (you know I'm kidding, I just couldn't resist an opening that big)

[Higgins]

An "elitist" is not someone who owns multiple houses or has hundreds of millions.

An "elitist" could be dirt poor.

An "elitist" is a legend... in his/her own mind.

Does elitist actually mean anything? I wonder if infantile elitist might be what people really mean by elitist.

[Ageless Stranger]

Does elitist actually mean anything? I wonder if infantile elitist might be what people really mean by elitist.

I wonder also. The word is being thrown about so much (as all words are in politics) that it has lost all meaning in these discussions.

[maestrowork]

Same with the Ayers link, which has real implications of Obama's fundamental views of the USA, if he's inspired by those who hate the US so much that they'd involve themselves in domestic terrorism. Coupled with a wife who says she's 'never been proud of American until now' and a preacher who says 'God damn the US', that's pretty nasty stuff.

Meanwhile we're supposed to lay off Palin for associating with her pastor who thinks the war is God's will, etc. Obama was 8 when Ayers was involved in his radical group. Ayers is now a professor and his association with Obama is only cursory. I agree all that character assassination is really nasty stuff, and I'm disappointed that Sarah Palin gets into the game. She looked like she could be fair.

Look, I own a gun, but I also believe in stricter gun control. The 2nd amendment is still doing fine, thank you very much. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right for EVERY friggin nut case to bear arms without restrictions or background checks. I own a gun myself and I eat at fancy restaurants, too, and I like the progressiveness of major American cities. I also believe I have a talent as a writer and I think I'm going to make it big. Call me an elitist any time. Proud of it.

[kuwisdelu]

Okay-- after listening to the clip, I STILL don't see how what he said suggests that he thinks himself better than anyone. But I'm dense that way.

I'm also a from a small midwest town in a state that has been hemorrhaging jobs for years before the rest of the country, I have to agree that there are people who are so frustrated with the situations they've ended up in that they seem to only be able to focus on one or two issues-- they can't see the big picture and they don't care about anything more than whether this president will take away their guns or whatever their pet issues is. These people exist-- I've had them in class, known them, worked with them. They can only talk about one aspect of a politician or issue (and usually, sadly, only in sound bites and commercial clips...)

Give me the words-- the phrases, the sentences that mean "elitism"? I'm still not seeing it. "Cling?" "Religion" I see no inherent connotation of elitism in Obama stating that some people in some places cling to certain things out of frustation. But that might just be because I think it's a valid statement. Of course, I have to watch what I say around people because I can't win versus soundbites.

Look, I own a gun, but I also believe in stricter gun control. The 2nd amendment is still doing fine, thank you very much. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right for EVERY friggin nut case to bear arms without restrictions or background checks. I own a gun myself and I eat at fancy restaurants, too, and I like the progressiveness of major American cities. I also believe I have a talent as a writer and I think I'm going to make it big. Call me an elitist any time. Proud of it.

What they said.

What he said sounds a lot less like an elitist statement to me than a legitimate and accurate observation about certain places in rural America. I know, because I've live there, too. Does that make me elitist? I don't know, and I don't really care if it does. I've heard lots of accusations toward Obama that scare me--and honestly I think the people who criticize him as being "too intellectual" bother me even more than those who are afraid he's a secret Moslem. Seriously. "Too intellectual"???

And I agree with Ray about the Second Amendment. I'll probably own a gun; most of my family owns guns; they're for hunting, though. Yes, I see a reason for the basic right to self-defense, but clinging to your gun like it's your baby and some of the quotes/links Don posted just strikes me as paranoid.

[Tirjasdyn]

And I agree with Ray about the Second Amendment. I'll probably own a gun; most of my family owns guns; they're for hunting, though. Yes, I see a reason for the basic right to self-defense, but clinging to your gun like it's your baby and some of the quotes/links Don posted just strikes me as paranoid.


It's not actually paranoid. Sorry, while I agree that not every nutcase should own a gun, I do believe that it is a right of Americans to own guns. Considering the amendment is such a direct reponse to the Britain of the late 1700's, I don't not think they should be our model now.

There are three reasons to own guns of any shape and size:

Hunting

Protection against fellow citizens

Protection against government, whether ours or someone else's.

Most folks forget or deny the last reason. And frankly, we never should.
I know some of you consider that crazy talk. I would urge you to really think on that.

So yeah, the gun policy is a deal breaker for me.

[maestrowork]

It's not actually paranoid. Sorry, while I agree that not every nutcase should own a gun, I do believe that it is a right of Americans to own guns. Considering the amendment is such a direct reponse to the Britain of the late 1700's, I don't not think they should be our model now.

I don't see anyone proposing taking the right from US citizens.

Jumping from gun control to gun bans -- if you don't call it paranoia, I don't know what it is. I see this all the time: Let's have people wait seven days with a background check = OMG, they're going to take my rights away! How dare they!

[Clair Dickson]

Let's not forget that the President has little control over the Constitution. There is a bit of this funny checks and balances in place. Regardless of Obama's personal stance on guns (and he hardly seems anti-gun from what I've read), if he knows anything about being President, then he knows the 2nd Amendment (and the other 26) are going to continue on.

Basic government and or history class. Checks and balances. Congress and the Supreme Court would never let the 2nd Amendment be taken away. Government 101.

[maestrowork]

That's why gun ban/control is a wedge issue. It really doesn't have much to do with a Presidential election.

[Takvah]

Let's not forget that the President has little control over the Constitution. There is a bit of this funny checks and balances in place. Regardless of Obama's personal stance on guns (and he hardly seems anti-gun from what I've read), if he knows anything about being President, then he knows the 2nd Amendment (and the other 26) are going to continue on.

Basic government and or history class. Checks and balances. Congress and the Supreme Court would never let the 2nd Amendment be taken away. Government 101.

If Obama gets elected, checks and balances may cease to exist come January. The Supremes could call any law enacted unconstitutional, but then how long until Barry gets to put some left leaning judge on the bench? And if there be no checks from the Dems in Congress, he can put any socialist asshole he wants in there. You take a lot for granted by saying never, kind of like me when I say abortion will never be outlawed.... women tend to go nuts.

[Unique]

And I, for one, am about ready to have someone elite in the White House. Eight years of mediocrity has been plenty.
>POINT!<

The implication is that rural Americans are 'clinging' to outdated ideologies and not as 'enlightened' as those in the cities. Those poor backwoods hicks are ignorant and backward, while we are the light, the shining beacon of enlightened thought is pretty much what I get out of the statement. oh, horsefeathers. I was born rural, I'll live rural and I'll die rural. I don't have a gun cuz I'd use it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with gun control, although the Obama campaign has tried to make it about that so he can squeak out of it.



Look, I own a gun, but I also believe in stricter gun control. The 2nd amendment is still doing fine, thank you very much.
I think the Constitution is more than 'just a piece of paper' to Mr. Obama.
JMO.

If Obama gets elected, checks and balances may cease to exist come January. The Supremes could call any law enacted unconstitutional.
We'll still have the same Supremes come January. Is someone fixin' to retire? Die? Develop Alzheimer's? I think the next President will be a little too busy to find time to mess with the Constitution. At least for a year or two.

[maestrowork]

The end of the world is nigh if Obama was elected. (checks and balances already ceased to exist between 2000 and 2006. Somehow Roe vs. Wade is still intact, and gay marriage bans haven't passed...)

Let's get that straight.

Damn, it's already happening, and the election hasn't even happened yet.

It's Clinton's fault, by the way.

[Clair Dickson]

How long until there's hope for rational thought to return? Oy.

The Dems know that their seat in congress is tenuous. They know that if they piss off the gun owners, and/or women, back home by writing a law (as they're the ONLY part of the government taht can!) that overrides the 2nd Amendment or bans abortion, that they will LOSE their seats in Congress. Checks and balances.

Seriously. Even with GWB and crew at the helm, the government stayed relatively intact. And the Republicans who were part of the frist wave saw themselves in tickets out of DC when people got unhappy.

And... nobody's fool enough to piss of the gun owners... ;-)

[Christine N.]

Watching the news today, I'm almost hoping McCain will win. Only because whoever does win will have one hell of a mess to clean up. Then everyone will blame him for the continued collapse of the economy after he takes office.

Ugh, never mind. McCain might make it worse.

[maestrowork]

Watching the news today, I'm almost hoping McCain will win. Only because whoever does win will have one hell of a mess to clean up. Then everyone will blame him for the continued collapse of the economy after he takes office.

I'm not that vindictive, and I definitely want the country to do well. If McCain can fix this country, let him have it.

Ask what you can do for your country, folks.

[Rolling Thunder]

Most of the points in P&CE threads can be cleared up with some fact checking. I like this site:

www.factcheck.org

It's non-partisan, so you get the tickles along with the butt kicks for both candidates. This page is only one found there on the subject of guns:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

[odocoileus]

If Obama gets elected, checks and balances may cease to exist come January. The Supremes could call any law enacted unconstitutional, but then how long until Barry gets to put some left leaning judge on the bench? And if there be no checks from the Dems in Congress, he can put any socialist asshole he wants in there. You take a lot for granted by saying never, kind of like me when I say abortion will never be outlawed.... women tend to go nuts.


It's always a good idea to understand the meaning of a word before you use it.


so·cial·ism http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/S0525000/socialism) (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

[TerzaRima]

What he said sounds a lot less like an elitist statement to me than a legitimate and accurate observation about certain places in rural America.

Word. Since we moved here I've learned more about NASCAR, doe licenses, and people who won't let their kids celebrate Halloween than I ever knew existed. Before everyone jumps in with pitchforks and torches, I'm not calling rural Americans yutzes.

As others have said, though, Obama made a pretty accurate observation here about a particular subsegment of that population. I think everyone jumped all over that comment precisely because of the truth in it.

[tiny]

Generalizations and stereotypes are usually not looked upon well especially by the group they are aimed at. Everyone would be having a stroke had he been generalizing about a specific race or religious group, but "rednecks" are fair game.

[Williebee]

His comments were accurate for the rural, middle of America that I live in. Unfortunate, but true.

The only thing growing in this area is SOME churches and gun clubs. Which is weird, because the population is dropping steadily, faster than either of the other two are growing.

[Inkdaub]

It's a reminder of how Obama dismisses them as paranoid and stupid.

Well, if it quacks like a duck...

[johnnysannie]

Hit it in one, whistlelock.

In other words, it's a campaign ploy to make gun owners believe that if Obama were elected their Second Amendment rights would be negatively affected.

Yes, that's the ploy. Of course Second Ammendment rights won't be affected when Obama becomes President.

It's just more smoke and mirrors, the last tool the McCain Camp and right can find to use. They have little else.

[Unique]

smoke and mirrors


Love your sig line, annie. :)

'trickle down' doesn't work all that well.

Shit rolls down hill, too.

Think about it. ;)

later, peeps. got more **** to stir locally. :D

[johnnysannie]

Just Obama being elitist and trying to explain away why small town America doesn't get him. It's more than NRA propaganda to people that don't live in the cities. It's a reminder of how Obama dismisses them as paranoid and stupid.

Actually, as someone who lives in a small town, Obama's comments on small town people clinging to their guns and religion didn't offend me. It did the reverse - it impressed me that he gets what is happening in small towns across the nation.

My views are still the same as I expressed on my blog back in April....

http://leeannsontheimermurphy.blogspot.com

Monday, April 14, 2008
Small Town Remarks Are Accurate And I'm Not Offended By Barack Obama's Insights
As I'm sure most Americans have heard by now, Obama is under fire, this time for remarks he made about small towns. The media's calling it a major stumble and outrage is rampant.As an Obama supporter who lives in a small town, though, I am not offended. In fact, I am actually impressed that Obama understands the plight of small towns as well as he does. We who do live in small towns can pretend that we live in Andy Taylor's Mayberry or some other sweet fantasy but the reality is about what Obama described.I'm sure this will create heated debates but here's what Obama said:"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said Sunday, according to the Huffington Post web site."And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not," Obama reportedly continued. "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."And here's my take on what he said, one statement at a time:1. "the jobs have been gone for 25 years and nothing has replaced them".....that is sad but true in many, many towns. Where I live, twenty five years ago there was a Tyson Foods plant, a Sunbeam plant, a Teledyne (formerly Rocketdyne) plant, and La-Z-Boy Midwest. Today, of those, only the La-Z-Boy plant remains. Big news there is that the sewing department is outsourcing to Mexico over the next few months and two other LZB plants have or will close. 2. "somehow these communities are going to regenerate but they have not".In my town, there is a downtown square. Twenty-five years ago, it had multiple businesses, department stores, shoe stores, hardware stories, two five and dime stores, three jewelry stores, two photography studios, furniture store, appliance dealer, ladies wear shops, several viable restaurants, three banks, two dry cleaners, and several drug stores.Today, the Square is mostly empty; most of the businesses that are present are resale shops and flea markets and "antique" stores that don't have any valuable antiques for sale. One bank and one gift shop are all that remain from twenty five years ago. A few businesses - about three - have moved to another of town but most are just gone and they have not been replaced with comparable shopping.We have fewer grocery stores, no department stores (unless you want to count Wal-Mart which was here twenty-five years ago too), and less of everything.3. " "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".Many people here are bitter - they don't see a future for young people, many of whom leave to work and live elsewhere. Folks around here are fond of their guns and hunting season is a really big deal. I'm not opposed to that in any way and sometimes hunt myself but there is a very real "gun culture" that exists. Religion is big and this town has more churches than anything else. Going to church here is just the beginning. Church is not just Sunday but Wednesday night not to mention the endless church dinners, fund raisers, youth events, studies, vacation Bible schools, women's groups, men's groups. I have no doubt that I will be accuse of being anti-religious but for many people, without their church, they would have little life outside work. Heck, the schools have a policy not to give homework on Wednesday because it's "church night"."Antipathy to people that are different"....this is very common here; the locals are suspicious of anyone not born and raised here with at least three generations of local kinfolk. So you have two groups - natives who hang together and view the "outsiders" with suspicion, even those who have lived here for thirty, forty, fifty years. "anti-immigrant sentiment"....in the past fifteen years we have seen an ever growing Hispanic population, many of which are immigrants. And there is a huge anti-immigrant sentiment here as well as an anti-trade feeling.If anything, I'm not offended but surprised that any politican could peg the characteristics of small town life as well as Obama has. Can Obama solve all these issues or make the quality of life better? Maybe so and maybe no but at least the man is aware of the problems, he sees the negative changes that have occured, and he is willing to try to do something about it. That's more than we have had from any politician or elected official except our local state rep, a former school classmate who does his best to work for his constituents.Having the ability to see the reality, to view the truth, is just another of the many reasons that I support Barack Obama.

[Cranky]

Yes, that's the ploy. Of course Second Ammendment rights won't be affected when Obama becomes President.

It's just more smoke and mirrors, the last tool the McCain Camp and right can find to use. They have little else.

And yet, isn't it strange that people are convinced that Palin (the veep candidate, no less) will usher in a reversal on Roe v. Wade?

[johnnysannie]

And yet, isn't it strange that people are convinced that Palin (the veep candidate, no less) will usher in a reversal on Roe v. Wade?

Palin's pro-life stance is well known. She dodged around the issue in the Couric interview but here's a quote from it,

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

In her interview with Charles Gibson, she said it should be overturned.

Both she and McCain have made their public position clear, that Roe vs. Wade is "flawed" and must be overturned. There are countless sources to confirm this.


The McCain camp has said it over and over; no one needs smoke and mirrors to present this because they have said it long and loud and openly.

[Cranky]

Palin's pro-life stance is well known. She dodged around the issue in the Couric interview but here's a quote from it,

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

In her interview with Charles Gibson, she said it should be overturned.

Both she and McCain have made their public position clear, that Roe vs. Wade is "flawed" and must be overturned. There are countless sources to confirm this.


The McCain camp has said it over and over; no one needs smoke and mirrors to present this because they have said it long and loud and openly.

I understand Palin's position quite well, thanks. I am not ignorant of it, nor am I unaware of Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment. My point is that if Obama will be unable to have the 2nd thrown out, I'm pretty damn sure McCain/Palin won't be able to have R v. W thrown out either, for the same reasons cited above.

Smoke and mirrors, indeed.

[johnnysannie]

I understand Palin's position quite well, thanks. I am not ignorant of it, nor am I unaware of Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment. My point is that if Obama will be unable to have the 2nd thrown out, I'm pretty damn sure McCain/Palin won't be able to have R v. W thrown out either, for the same reasons cited above.

Smoke and mirrors, indeed.


You're missing the major difference between an Ammendment to the Constitution and a Supreme Court Decision. Should McCain/Palin (or as she prefers, Palin/McCain) be elected, they will have the opportunity to use the currently primarily Conservative court to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision.

To repeal an Ammendment, it requires an Act of Congress, a far more complicated act to accomplish.

In this case, we're talking apples and oranges, not smoke and mirrors.

[Jimmyboy1]

Takvah's point re checks and balances is spot-on.

The presidency has everything to do with "legislation", even though the Constitution laid it out far differently.

The Framers did NOT intend for the SCOTUS judges to be legislating from the bench. But that's exactly what has been happening. (see Mark Levin's "Men In Black")

The president's nominees to the SCOTUS are everything, gun issues included.

When liberal, unelected, unaccountable judges rewrite the Constitution as they have with private property, Roe... even with what they attempted w/ Gore in FL... we all lose.

Remember that old saying about "without representation"??

As Rush Limbaugh correctly points out, judges are the last frontier of liberalism, because it is in courts that liberals take power and enact "legislation" they could never attain at the ballot box.

Make no mistake. Activist judges are nothing short of tyranny.

[johnnysannie]

Whenever I hear people tossing around phrases like "the framers" and "the founding fathers", I smell a neo-con.


You may not like decisions handed down by what you call "liberal, unelected, unaccountable" judges but tit for tat, I object to many decisions handed down by conservative, out of touch, uncaring judges.

The difference - one of many - between myself and Sarah Palin is that I can list Supreme Court rulings that I disagree with and she was unable to do so.

[Williebee]

When liberal, unelected, unaccountable judges rewrite the Constitution

Think about this, just for a second or two:

Swap the word "liberal" with "conservative", and the same thing is true.
Swap it with any one of a couple of other choice words and it's hatespeak.

How about we just insert the word "any", instead of taking away from the facts of the point by trying to slant the message?

[Cranky]

You're missing the major difference between an Ammendment to the Constitution and a Supreme Court Decision. Should McCain/Palin (or as she prefers, Palin/McCain) be elected, they will have the opportunity to use the currently primarily Conservative court to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision.

To repeal an Ammendment, it requires an Act of Congress, a far more complicated act to accomplish.

In this case, we're talking apples and oranges, not smoke and mirrors.

No, I'm really not. I do get that there is a difference. *sigh* Look, both of those issues have supporters that are vocal, vigorous, and unafraid to stand up for what they believe in.

The Supremes are impervious to the politics of the masses (as far as being held accountable for their rulings). However. The appointees have to be approved by Congress. McCain can't just say, "I want this guy/gal", and *poof* they get the robes.

I seriously doubt a judge that would overturn R. v. W. would get that stamp of approval.

[Clair Dickson]

I don't want my Supreme Court (or ANY judge!) to be accountable to the ever changing whims of the masses. I want them to uphold the laws as written. Now, I realize that their interpretation may or may not be the same as mine, but I accept that. Their interpretation can always be challenged, as has been done many times.

I think Roe v. Wade is threatened by the new conservative judges and don't believe the Constitution is threatened by the current Congress (or any Congress, really, but that's just me.) But I think either is unkilely-- just that Roe is more likely than changes to the Constitution (but still both very unlikely.)

But, if we care about FACTS (which not every one does because it gets in the way of their assertions) then we have to recognize that it's very unlikely that there's going to be a sudden shift in the Supreme Court judges. They're appointed for life...

But I'm not the type to get all worked up over unsupported soundbites and allegations over what could happen if these seventeen other unlikely things ALL happened. If that was the case, I wouldn't be able to drive to work through the deadliest intersection in the WHOLE county and down the deadly expressway! I'm oddly rational that way...

[Don]

You're missing the major difference between an Amendment to the Constitution and a Supreme Court Decision. Should McCain/Palin (or as she prefers, Palin/McCain) be elected, they will have the opportunity to use the currently primarily Conservative court to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision.

To repeal an Amendment, it requires an Act of Congress, a far more complicated act to accomplish.

In this case, we're talking apples and oranges, not smoke and mirrors.
After Kelo, Let's not pretend any more that the Constitution means anything to FedGov other than a word they invoke to justify their thievery.

The Supremes could effectively rule the Second Amendment null and void tomorrow. They hesitate to do so only because the public outcry would still be too great and the possibility of open revolt is still too high.

The longer FedGov keeps control of our educational system and our media, the more those two factors will shift in their favor.

If politics demanded, they would overthrow Roe v. Wade as quickly.

[mscelina]

You know, this Roe v. Wade straw man is getting old.

No matter who is elected this November, the odds of Roe v. Wade being overturned are negligible at best. It's not a states' right issue--nor is it a national issue. It's a constitutional issue hinging upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of an implied right to privacy within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is the same implied right to privacy that allowed a group I worked with to force the overturning of sodomy laws in several states. It is the cornerstone of the effort to overturn bans on gay marriage. In order for an overturning of Roe v. Wade, it's entirely possible that the Fourteenth Amendment and perhaps even the Fifth would also have to be amended in order to make it stick in any court.

The idea that Sarah Palin or any other politician can single-handedly overturn a decision that has stood through forty years and constant conservative challenge is ludicrous.

[maestrowork]

The idea that Sarah Palin or any other politician can single-handedly overturn a decision that has stood through forty years and constant conservative challenge is ludicrous.

But they sure can try, much like the gay marriage ban amendment. And that would drive a deep wedge among Americans, and that's something I don't want all over again. Leave the constitution alone.

[Don]

Whenever I hear people tossing around phrases like "the framers" and "the founding fathers", I smell a neo-con.

Just as when the phrase "Liberal" is thrown around in American politics, it has nothing to do with the original or current international use of the word, but instead denotes charitable works via government-coherced wealth redistribution. I'm glad to see that being replaced with 'Progressive,' even though it's not. :D

We supporters of greatly limited government have been ripped off by both the left and the right. We're the true Liberals, and the true heirs of the founding fathers.

[mscelina]

How can they try?

Not being facetious here, Ray. Sure, a McCain presidency could, if given the oppoortunity, try to stack the court with that one ultra conservative voice--but that candidate would never make it through the nomination process. Yes--I disagree with the party stance on abortion rights and I see where the concern lies with this ticket but I still have to look at the issue with a modicum of reason.

And I don't think it can be overturned. As I've said before, unless the bubonic plague wiped the whole Court out there's no way that a single President could possibly alter the makeup of the court enough to affect the Constitution in that broad a manner. JHO,of course.

[Cranky]

How can they try?

Not being facetious here, Ray. Sure, a McCain presidency could, if given the oppoortunity, try to stack the court with that one ultra conservative voice--but that candidate would never make it through the nomination process. Yes--I disagree with the party stance on abortion rights and I see where the concern lies with this ticket but I still have to look at the issue with a modicum of reason.

And I don't think it can be overturned. As I've said before, unless the bubonic plague wiped the whole Court out there's no way that a single President could possibly alter the makeup of the court enough to affect the Constitution in that broad a manner. JHO,of course.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say. Clearly, I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to be articulate. :D I think both things (gun rights and abortion) will end up exactly where they are now. People will still have the right to bear arms and to have access to abortion.

[mscelina]

Yes...so that whack jobs can shoot abortion doctors. No change in the status quo at all.

Sorry, bitter moment there. Abortion is a bitter topic for me anyway, but when it gets paired with guns it brings a lot of bad memories back.

[Cranky]

Sorry, Cel. :Hug2:

Anyways, I guess this was just my way of saying that I think people on both sides are overinflating the issues. As V said in her other thread, it all comes down to fear, and by golly, I am sick of being flogged by politicians to fear their opponents. I don't like making decisions based on fear. I think it's a bad way to run a railroad.

[Jimmyboy1]

Would anyone here disavow the Declaration?

Just wondering.

If not, how do we protect the unborn's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

Just wondering. Or is the answer a "privacy issue"?

[mscelina]

Fear is the fuel of politics. It always has been. Every four years, our presidential elections dissolve into this morass of misinformation--if you vote for THIS party your personal rights will be taken away but if you vote for THIS party your money will be taken away. It's all vitriol--back and forth without monitor or measure. It's fear-mongering, scandal, and lies. Without the near-hysterical hyperbole of campaign season, voter interest would be low and turnout would be scant.

I don't know if it says something about our society as a whole or if it says something about the naivete of our originators, who thought of equality as percentages and compromised our path in order to free the country from its oppressor. But as long as the politics of hate supersede the politics of ideas then we're doomed to suffer through this every four years like clockwork.

[mscelina]

Would anyone here disavow the Declaration?

Just wondering.

If not, how do we protect the unborn's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

Just wondering. Or is the answer a "privacy issue"?

Jesus Christ, Jimmy. Are you trying to get eviscerated here?

The Declaration of Independence is a declaration, and not a legal document. It outlines the principles of the founding fathers and their reasons for their rebellion. It does not establish legal precedent in this country. Surely I don't have to tell you that.

[Cranky]

Fear is the fuel of politics. It always has been. Every four years, our presidential elections dissolve into this morass of misinformation--if you vote for THIS party your personal rights will be taken away but if you vote for THIS party your money will be taken away. It's all vitriol--back and forth without monitor or measure. It's fear-mongering, scandal, and lies. Without the near-hysterical hyperbole of campaign season, voter interest would be low and turnout would be scant.

I don't know if it says something about our society as a whole or if it says something about the naivete of our originators, who thought of equality as percentages and compromised our path in order to free the country from its oppressor. But as long as the politics of hate supersede the politics of ideas then we're doomed to suffer through this every four years like clockwork.

I know. And it's tiresome. It all goes back to wanting to vote FOR someone or something, rather than AGAINST someone or something else. And this year, again, we have Dumb and Dumberer.

Honestly, I think people are just plain mean, and we enjoy the bloodsport. We're disappointed when politicians don't "take it to" each other; we call them boring, insipid, etc.

We don't get excited about much of anything these days, unless it's trying to get in our vote for the next American Idol. We're shallow, fickle, and dumb when it comes to politics. (I mean Americans as a whole.) We go by soundbites, because we're all "too busy" to do our research on the candidates. We don't have time to be informed, and we're frankly bored by the responsibility.

The folks here on P&CE are an exception to that, though, I think. Even if we don't agree.

[Tirjasdyn]

I don't see anyone proposing taking the right from US citizens.

Jumping from gun control to gun bans -- if you don't call it paranoia, I don't know what it is. I see this all the time: Let's have people wait seven days with a background check = OMG, they're going to take my rights away! How dare they!

Didn't say that.

Obama is Senator in a state that has gun bans, which he has supported, though. Deal breaker.

Background checks which include medical history. I don't have a problem with. Most states (I said most) have these and they should be enforced.

But yes I am against banning.

[Tirjasdyn]

Let's not forget that the President has little control over the Constitution. There is a bit of this funny checks and balances in place. Regardless of Obama's personal stance on guns (and he hardly seems anti-gun from what I've read), if he knows anything about being President, then he knows the 2nd Amendment (and the other 26) are going to continue on.

Basic government and or history class. Checks and balances. Congress and the Supreme Court would never let the 2nd Amendment be taken away. Government 101.

Presidents still sign things into law, last I checked. GB sr and Clinton both signed bans for specific guns into law.

We're nitpicking here. I still believe that if the ATF can break into my house with machine guns, I should be able to have one. I believed different before I worked for a company regulated by the ATF. After having to deal with them on a daily basis, I changed my mind.

[Clair Dickson]

Presidents still sign things into law, last I checked. GB sr and Clinton both signed bans for specific guns into law.



BUT Congress has to write the law before it can be signed by anyone... that's my point. Congress won't write the law. The Pres can't force them to do it.

[Tirjasdyn]

BUT Congress has to write the law before it can be signed by anyone... that's my point. Congress won't write the law. The Pres can't force them to do it.

:) Really? Bailout, Patriot Act?

I wish I had faith in congress. I just don't.

[MoonWriter]

I know. And it's tiresome. It all goes back to wanting to vote FOR someone or something, rather than AGAINST someone or something else. And this year, again, we have Dumb and Dumberer.

Honestly, I think people are just plain mean, and we enjoy the bloodsport. We're disappointed when politicians don't "take it to" each other; we call them boring, insipid, etc.

We don't get excited about much of anything these days, unless it's trying to get in our vote for the next American Idol. We're shallow, fickle, and dumb when it comes to politics. (I mean Americans as a whole.) We go by soundbites, because we're all "too busy" to do our research on the candidates. We don't have time to be informed, and we're frankly bored by the responsibility.

The folks here on P&CE are an exception to that, though, I think. Even if we don't agree.

I don't agree with the paragraph above the one bolded, but the bolded one describes me to the tee - especially the part about American Idol - until about 8 weeks ago when I started lurking in the P&CE forum. I'm still lacking in my understanding of politics, but I'm now more informed than I had been thanks to those willing to share their opinions and those willing to provide links to enlightening articles. So, thanks.

[Cranky]

I don't agree with the paragraph above the one bolded, but the bolded one describes me to the tee - especially the part about American Idol - until about 8 weeks ago when I started lurking in the P&CE forum. I'm still lacking in my understanding of politics, but I'm now more informed than I had been thanks to those willing to share their opinions and those willing to provide links to enlightening articles. So, thanks.

Another recruit for the Dark Side! We political junkies is bad news, MoonWriter.

The cookies are pretty awesome though.

[InfinityGoddess]

Would anyone here disavow the Declaration?

Just wondering.

If not, how do we protect the unborn's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

Just wondering. Or is the answer a "privacy issue"?

Roe vs. Wade is based on the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, not to be confused with the Declaration of Independence, which is the document that stated the Founding Father's intentions of breaking away from the madness of King George III of England.

[MoonWriter]

Another recruit for the Dark Side! We political junkies is bad news, MoonWriter.

The cookies are pretty awesome though.

That's why I came here in the first place. Can't wait for the election - I've put on 5 pounds.

[mscelina]

Heh. I've lost almost 20 in two weeks. Go figure.

Hand me a cookie.

[kuwisdelu]

Would anyone here disavow the Declaration?

Just wondering.

If not, how do we protect the unborn's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

Just wondering. Or is the answer a "privacy issue"?

*sigh*

First of all, the Declaration of the Independence isn't law.

Second of all, not all of the "unborn" have rights. That's a "when does life begin" argument that doesn't really have any place in this thread.

Third of all, IMO, it's not a "privacy issue" at all. Seriously, what does abortion have to do with "privacy"? Can you only get an abortion if you keep it a secret or something? No--the idiots in Washington aside--it should be Ninth Amendment issue, concerning the right to one's own body. Remember, we have more rights than just the ones written down.

Hamilton is rolling in his grave.

[mscelina]

The case was decided on the basis of the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, kuwidelsu, as a result of being more applicable to the personal liberties involving the privacy of one's own body. It is clearly a privacy issue according to Roe v. Wade and other cases that followed it.

The District Court cited the Ninth Amendment in its decision--which although it was in favor of Roe still declined to address the issue of the right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court superseded that in favor of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Blackmun's majority decision, it clearly states : "...right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

So, according to Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to privacy in implied in interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

[kuwisdelu]

I understand their reasoning; I just think it's wrong. :)

[mscelina]

But the law as it stands is the right of privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment. :)

An important distinction in this particular connotation.

[Jimmyboy1]

You guys are putting words in my mouth..
Not nice!

[mscelina]

What words would those be?