For ten years Sen. Barack Obama made a portion of his income as an instructor, he says professor, of constitutional law at university level.

In tonight's debate, the professor was unable to state his position on the most significant constitutional issue to reach the Supreme Court in the past 20 years.

Leaving aside the merits of Heller v. District of Columbia, which will be the first SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Supreme Court in 70 years, Sen. Obama's inability to have any position is troubling.

Under fairly intense questioning, he said that he hadn't read anything on the case and has no opinion as to its outcome.

I am just speculating here, but I would assume he did not want to let his guard down about supporting handgun restrictions.

The concerning thing to me was that they both said essentially, that they want to place restrictions on weapons that would withstand constitutional scrutiny. What part of "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" dont' they understand?

If any legislation is needed, it should be much stiffer penalties for crimes committed by people with firearms. 90% of the US gun-holders are good, law abiding Americans, why penalize them, and why go against the Consitution, that all politicians are charged with upholding? Focus on criminals, and the criminal activity.

Personally, the general populace should own at least one rifle or shotgun, and everyone able to hold it, should know how to use it. Defending the Constitution is the job of the People; government will always try to accumulate as much power as it can, the obstacle is a citizenry willing to stand up and fight, and to die, for the ideals this country was founded on.

I watched the debate last night, and I am more convinced than ever, that a Democratic White House is not in the best interest on this country. Hopefully, McCain will not turn out to be as closed minded as Dubya.

The first amendment prevents Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, but SCOTUS has allowed "reasonable" restrictions to be placed on those rights. I have never understod why the rights granted under the 2nd amendment should not be similarly subject.

Doesn't sound like an appropriate issue for the Feds, Mr. Libertarian...

Not only is qualified to teach law, he is qualified to teach Human Psychology. He just probably just doesnt know anything about it.

Actually it's you that misunderstand.



While we do try to avoid, on a federal level, restricting your right to own a firearm and protect yourself, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, is different from the right of any person to keep and bear any arms, as much as the right to keep bear arms is different.

I just want to know if he had his American Flag lapel pin on...

just looked at Fox News...OMG, he is not wearing the pin. Does that mean that everything he said the day before about his patriotism and how much the vet giving it to him meant was a load of hooey???

Say it ain't so, Joe...

http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,3791,00.html#2_0

(of course, the Obama conspiracists will say FOX airbrushed the pin out of the photos)

It's not even close to being that significant.

I don't understand your distinction. And maybe that's the debate. I understand it to mean that the founders, who drafted the second amendment, were not only concerned about England, or another foreign power attempting to regain control of North America as a colony, they were concerned about the new government gaining too much control and becoming tyrannical. By instituting the 2nd Amendment, it was there hope that the People, as their duty, would rise up and oppose the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic by a central government that became too large and powerful. I think that's what Jefferson meant when he said:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Another good TJ quote:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

America needs the people to gain the discipline to govern themselves, not rely on the government to do it for them. The welfare state we've created is stifling our Liberty and creatvity to continual improve our condition. More government oversight is not the answer!

The distinction? Our militia (read National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) needs to be armed.

Our people have the right to have weapons too.

That doesn't mean that any individual has the right to own an M-60, a tank, a heat seeking missile, or a nuclear bomb.

I don't consider the the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines to be our milita. They are the projection of governmental power over the people. Maybe the National Guard.

I focus more on the People reference in the 2nd Amendment. As for the type and concentration of firepower the people possess, that's up to a discipline, informed and enlightened populace; but the Right to bear arms by the people to defend the Republic and the Constitution themselves is paramount...Even from the current government if it has been deemed too tyrannical or despotic or places our Liberty in jeopardy.

Switzerland requires every man over the age of 18 to own a weapon, and come to the defense of the country if needed. That would be a militia. Joining a branch of the service in the US above, they furnish you a weapon. Not a militia.

Actually, Article I Section 8 covers this. The 2nd amendment is an individual right(just like the other nine in the BOR) , and militia is not a professional standing Army.

According to who?

So the government should not prevent your neighbor from owning a nuke?

Isn't our very system of government based on an informed populace voting for people who will regulate such things appropriately?

You cannot count on individuals to be enlightened or even SANE, yet alone rely on them to make sensible choices regarding whether they should own a weapon. Those most likely to want to own a heat seeking missile are also those most likely to abuse it at the expense of innocents.

Red Herring anyone? No one is talking about heat seeking missiles. If you are unhappy with the "people" (individuals) right to "keep" (own) and "bear" (carry) arms, amend the constitution.

Sure we are. We are talking about regulating what kind of weapon you are allowed to have. Whether it's a 9mm automatic pistol instead of a flintlock, or an M-16 or M-60, or a Mac-10, or a heat seeking missile or anti-tank weapon. FBH is claiming that the constitution says no regulation of weapons at all. I'm saying that's idiotic.

It seems pretty clear that PR stated his opinion and I stated mine.

BF is right. The Miller case specifically said that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't protected. Many types of arms have been banned or limited over the years.

Although Azazel is strapping on ice-skates as I type this, BengalsFan is correct. "Arms" is a broad term, and in the modern world encompasses a number of things that private citizens are already prohibited from owning. The government (Federal, and state) already regulates the kind of arms that can be owned.

He was directly asked about his feelings/thoughts regarding the flag and danced around the actual question with a bunch of talk about how he respects this country, etc but never answered about the flag. It was pointed out that the day he was given the flag lapel pin was the first day that he had worn a U.S. flag - does that not seem unreal for someone in the running for the President of the United States????

Will he even pledge the flag? I saw somewhere that he will turn his back to the flag during the pledge - I haven't ever witnessed this but it concerns me - I think that he would be the beginning of the end for "God" to appear in or on anything (pledge, money, etc.) - this all scares me.

The issue before the court is whether the right is collective or individual.

So what?

So questions about regulating an M-16, M-60, or F-15 are not terribly relevant to this case.