Caught. Lying. Again.

Amazing. This guy can’t tell the truth on any issues…

Dear Senator Obama,

Could you make up your mind?

Your Pal,
Vincenzo

This entry was posted in In The News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.foreversingh.com/ Raj

    Honestly, I don’t see the contradiction here… in both cases he states that the conflict is between an absolute black-and-white reading of the 2nd Amendment, a message typically carried out by the NRA types, that all regulation is bad regulation and in direct opposition to the Amendment. In both cases he points out that the 2nd Amendment should be upheld as a personal right to bear arms. In both cases he also points out the origin of the conflict – that the idea of total deregulation of gun ownership conflicts with the idea that guns can be owned while regional restrictions can, at the same time, be maintained according to the wishes and needs of those communities.

    The conflict is not in Obama’s thinking, it’s inherent in the law. All he’s doing in this video is pointing out the conflict as it has manifested itself prior to, and post-Supreme Court decision.

    The argument he makes, as I see it, is that something needs to change either with the Amendment or the way we think about that Amendment – does the right to bear arms mean that nobody has *any* right to regulate gun ownership? He repeatedly cites “responsible gun owners” as people who understand the need for background checks and gun registration, both issues, ironically that the NRA has in the past tried to destroy.

    The question is, I think, after the Court’s decision, where do we go from here, since it seems that the Court’s decision really isn’t a decision at all – it still stands that *some* gun regulation is o.k., just not total bans. The logic of the Court in this case was just completely inconsistent. Not unusual when you’ve got Justice Scalia making the calls.

  • http://www.foreversingh.com/ Raj

    Honestly, I don’t see the contradiction here… in both cases he states that the conflict is between an absolute black-and-white reading of the 2nd Amendment, a message typically carried out by the NRA types, that all regulation is bad regulation and in direct opposition to the Amendment. In both cases he points out that the 2nd Amendment should be upheld as a personal right to bear arms. In both cases he also points out the origin of the conflict – that the idea of total deregulation of gun ownership conflicts with the idea that guns can be owned while regional restrictions can, at the same time, be maintained according to the wishes and needs of those communities.

    The conflict is not in Obama’s thinking, it’s inherent in the law. All he’s doing in this video is pointing out the conflict as it has manifested itself prior to, and post-Supreme Court decision.

    The argument he makes, as I see it, is that something needs to change either with the Amendment or the way we think about that Amendment – does the right to bear arms mean that nobody has *any* right to regulate gun ownership? He repeatedly cites “responsible gun owners” as people who understand the need for background checks and gun registration, both issues, ironically that the NRA has in the past tried to destroy.

    The question is, I think, after the Court’s decision, where do we go from here, since it seems that the Court’s decision really isn’t a decision at all – it still stands that *some* gun regulation is o.k., just not total bans. The logic of the Court in this case was just completely inconsistent. Not unusual when you’ve got Justice Scalia making the calls.

  • http://www.foreversingh.com Raj

    Honestly, I don’t see the contradiction here… in both cases he states that the conflict is between an absolute black-and-white reading of the 2nd Amendment, a message typically carried out by the NRA types, that all regulation is bad regulation and in direct opposition to the Amendment. In both cases he points out that the 2nd Amendment should be upheld as a personal right to bear arms. In both cases he also points out the origin of the conflict – that the idea of total deregulation of gun ownership conflicts with the idea that guns can be owned while regional restrictions can, at the same time, be maintained according to the wishes and needs of those communities.

    The conflict is not in Obama’s thinking, it’s inherent in the law. All he’s doing in this video is pointing out the conflict as it has manifested itself prior to, and post-Supreme Court decision.

    The argument he makes, as I see it, is that something needs to change either with the Amendment or the way we think about that Amendment – does the right to bear arms mean that nobody has *any* right to regulate gun ownership? He repeatedly cites “responsible gun owners” as people who understand the need for background checks and gun registration, both issues, ironically that the NRA has in the past tried to destroy.

    The question is, I think, after the Court’s decision, where do we go from here, since it seems that the Court’s decision really isn’t a decision at all – it still stands that *some* gun regulation is o.k., just not total bans. The logic of the Court in this case was just completely inconsistent. Not unusual when you’ve got Justice Scalia making the calls.