Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Video: Obama Struggles to Explain the Second Amendment to Mexican Reporter After Aski (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/video-obama-struggles-explain-second-amendment-mexican-reporter-after-aski-39431/)

Sushihunter 03-07-2011 03:25 PM

Video: Obama Struggles to Explain the Second Amendment to Mexican Reporter After Aski
 
Video: Obama Struggles to Explain the Second Amendment to Mexican Reporter After Asking Why He Doesn’t Veto it…

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Video: Obama Struggles to Explain the Second Amendment to Mexican Reporter After Asking Why He Doesn’t Veto it…


According to the constitutionally clueless Obama the Second Amendment was put in place so we can go hunting. No, not making this up.


http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqG2G2GqG


“Well, the Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution, and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution,” Obama said. “So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses.”

Posted by ZIP on Saturday, March 5, 2011, at 12:58 pm |

kyleytxrialover 03-07-2011 04:20 PM

first why does he need to know read the thing and second a lot of stupid people voted for him just to make history (well i guess they did)

falseharmonix 03-07-2011 04:25 PM

I'm going to go against the grain a bit here....

I didn't find anything particularly wrong with what he said. Yes, the hunting excuse is a little played out. We all know it isn't a hunting right. Its a right to defend yourself against the tyrannies of government. But he did say that there aren't any particular bills that he has veto power over, and that includes the 2A. He also said that as POTUS he is bound by the Constitution. (whether or not he follows it, that's another story)

"for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses". He's absolutely right. It is for a wide range of uses. He didn't say "to keep Big Brother in check" specifically, but I believe that is blanketed in the wide range.

He mentioned wanting to keep checks on straw purchasers, those who buy large sums of weapons and ship them down to Mexico. Again, I don't find anything wrong with that. Someone does need to keep track of those kinds of purchases to see that they don't end up in the wrong hands, and illegally.

falseharmonix 03-07-2011 05:32 PM

Just thought of a couple other things. Obama is the POTUS. IMO, that is about the most important elected position in the world. When you talk to the global community, you want to portray power and some intelligence. The 2A is in place to check and balance that power. Therefore, as the POTUS, you wouldn't want to portray weakness by saying "well, I can't veto it because it is there to make sure I don't get too big for my britches".

And the second thought, the reporter asked, in essence, "why don't you veto the 2A?". The short and skinny answer to that question is "I can't". He blabbed for a couple of minutes to get at that point, but basically, "I can't" is the answer.

anm2_man 03-07-2011 09:09 PM

The POTUS in this situation, did not answer the question correctly. Why - there was NO teleprompter ! As an educated man, he struggles with every one of his press conferences where he has to answer questions. There are always so many "AH's" and "AND's", that he ends up sounding like he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I really think its the case where he is afraid to say the WRONG thing, because he would have to then face the uproar. He did a fairly good gob of explaining the constitution, but he never did get the point across that the only veto of any item in our constitution is by the people.

Personally, every time he doesn't have his teleprompter, he is in the same class as Bush 43.

Dillinger 03-07-2011 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falseharmonix (Post 459376)
I'm going to go against the grain a bit here....

I didn't find anything particularly wrong with what he said. Yes, the hunting excuse is a little played out. We all know it isn't a hunting right. Its a right to defend yourself against the tyrannies of government. But he did say that there aren't any particular bills that he has veto power over, and that includes the 2A. He also said that as POTUS he is bound by the Constitution. (whether or not he follows it, that's another story)

"for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses". He's absolutely right. It is for a wide range of uses. He didn't say "to keep Big Brother in check" specifically, but I believe that is blanketed in the wide range.

He mentioned wanting to keep checks on straw purchasers, those who buy large sums of weapons and ship them down to Mexico. Again, I don't find anything wrong with that. Someone does need to keep track of those kinds of purchases to see that they don't end up in the wrong hands, and illegally.

I'm with you on this one False. I don't like the guy, but he was being asked a question by a foreign national, about a subject they don't understand ( Constitutional Law versus Right to Veto ) and he laid out the top 3 or 4 things that came to what limited mind he has in that regard.

He should have said more of the things as you have indicated, but I am not personally offended by his saying that it's there for our protection and our right to bear arms.

Hunting has been played out. No question. But let me ask you this about that.

How many registered hunters drew game tags last year to legally hunt in the US??

I saw a comment from someone that said the tag holding populace of Wisconsin, Michigan and Montana, last year, comprised the 8th largest "army" on planet Earth. :eek:

Just sayin - Them hunters be important to the defense of 2A every bit as much as the Mall Ninja, the 1,000 yard benchrest guys and the "casual" shooter.

JD

PSmitty1 03-08-2011 04:20 AM

There is no doubt in my mind that he lied through his teeth when he said, " I believe in the second amendment".

wmille01 03-08-2011 04:32 AM

the guy was unprepared if your going to ask a question like that why note study up on the subject first. As for the question in general it would be nice if we stationed soldiers there at the border, I mean hell if I was planning on crossing the border and saw an M1 main battle tank sitting on the other side it would make me rethink.

pandamonium 03-08-2011 04:49 AM

I have come to the conclusion that he truly believes that he upholds the Constitution. His interpretation of it anyway...:eek:

User Name 03-08-2011 01:09 PM

I dont like the guy so im not trying to take his side, but in the video he didnt say anyting wrong. I think he did a good job at answering the question actually...


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.