United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, there is still the threat of it happening. As long as there is a threat, defense is logical, however seemingly irrational that threat may be.

So you believe we should all be allowed nuclear weapons since there is a threat may need one?

Like Robtard said, or I think was getting at, you need to find a medium or at least something backed up by proof and facts and statistics and history..ALL those things I just listed can back up the threat of gun and knife crime..but not the threat of tanks or jets attacking our homes.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the Obama infantcide scandal, while it was said by many that Obama opposed the bills in 2001, 2002, and 2003 at the state senate level because of the attempt to give all non-viable fetuses rights of protections as human, this is not the case according to factcheck.org.

The 2003 version, contained the same language as the federal "Born Alive" bill that Obama says he would support.

Specificallly,: "Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law."

The 2003 version with the wording Obama wanted never got to the state senate, however.

It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

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

Factcheck goes out of the way to say that whether or not this is infantcide is up to interpretation (do you consider a pre-viable fetus that needs to be supported an infant?), but it's pretty clear:

Obama was never for the bill, and when the 3rd version of it was changed with the same wording as the federal bill he says he would've supported, he killed it before it got to the senate.

And then changed his position on why he didn't support it. (it wasn't the wording, it was because it was a state bill.)

I'm bumping this post because it's important and I don't want it lost in the discussion of 2nd Ammendment right to bear arms. (also important)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is the point that is made by arguing from the extreme of the "I need guns to be safe" position.

And that's were you find a happy (logical) medium. You allow handguns which are good for home defense and rifles which are good for sporting/hunting and you outlaw AK-47s, which are generally used in warfare type combat.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm bumping this post because it's important and I don't want it lost in the discussion of 2nd Ammendment right to bear arms. (also important)

And I asked you a question about it when you originally posted.

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF, non-Americans crying over America and it's gun laws again. Seriously, why do you care? It's not like Kid Rock and Mota are going to take their handful of guns and invade Canada.

where do you think most illegal guns in Canada come from?

Originally posted by inimalist
where do you think most illegal guns in Canada come from?

America. Maybe Canada should protect it's borders better?

This also serves as an example, the criminals who want an illegal gun, find ways.

Originally posted by Robtard
And that's were you find a happy (logical) medium. You allow handguns which are good for home defense and rifles which are good for sporting/hunting and you outlaw AK-47s, which are generally used in warfare type combat.

I agree. I wasn't serious about wanting bazookas and such, in fact I believe I've mentioned previously on this thread that I think totally banning guns is at least as foolish as letting anyone buy any weapon they want.

Originally posted by KidRock
So you believe we should all be allowed nuclear weapons since there is a threat may need one?

Like Robtard said, or I think was getting at, you need to find a medium or at least something backed up by proof and facts and statistics and history..ALL those things I just listed can back up the threat of gun and knife crime..but not the threat of tanks or jets attacking our homes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you claiming Obama is a baby killer? If not, what then?

Sorry, missed that in all of the gun posts.

A baby killer? Sorta, but that's up to an individuals definition of "baby", and you know what mine is.

A liar, is more like it.

Because the defense was that the bill had language that would change the definition of a human being worthy of protection to be any fetus, and that if the bill was like the BAIP, Obama would support it.

When the bill was reintroduced again, with the wording that Obama wanted, he killed it before it could reach the state senate a 3rd time.

Note: he didn't offer any change on his position that it was because it would change the way that the bill affects abortion on the state level...that defense came about this summer when the issue was brought up again.

It's a total lie/flip flop as to why Obama wouldn't support the bill, effectively saving the life of a baby that was born alive, like any NICU would for a preemie baby born early.

Yes, I think that an abortion that goes wrong and results in the baby alive outside the womb (whether he/she needs support or not) should be protected and not left to pass away in a soiled boiler room.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
When the bill was reintroduced again, with the wording that Obama wanted, he killed it before it could reach the state senate a 3rd time.

Personally? I didn't think Senators had that sort of individual power.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Personally? I didn't think Senators had that sort of individual power.

You skipped part of the story then:

The 2003 version with the wording Obama wanted never got to the state senate, however.

It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Maybe he can use that to help his "no experience" problem?

Originally posted by Robtard
America. Maybe Canada should protect it's borders better?

This also serves as an example, the criminals who want an illegal gun, find ways.

you asked why I care, that is one reason

I don't think I ever disagreed with the fact that criminals have guns, and only promoted the idea that the American government may need to do some things focused on responsible gun ownership to lower the impact of guns being available in the market

I'd say the same about Canada, or any society, yet given how important america is, people don't listen to stuff when its about another country.

Originally posted by Robtard
And that's were you find a happy (logical) medium. You allow handguns which are good for home defense and rifles which are good for sporting/hunting and you outlaw AK-47s, which are generally used in warfare type combat.

interesting point, something that really surprised me:

AK 47s are manufactured in Las Vegas

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting point, something that really surprised me:

AK 47s are manufactured in Las Vegas

Aren't they manufactured all over the place? Vegas is kinda funny though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Aren't they manufactured all over the place? Vegas is kinda funny though.

totally, all around the world

when I heard that it was just one of those WTF moments. I'm not even saying its a bad thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
And that's were you find a happy (logical) medium. You allow handguns which are good for home defense and rifles which are good for sporting/hunting and you outlaw AK-47s, which are generally used in warfare type combat.

It is presumably more this attitude towards firearms, whereby some US citizenry feel an entitlement to owning dangerous weapons, that causes the disproportionately high amount of gun related violence. Such ownership should not be viewed as an inalienable right without preconditions, it should be accompanied by as inimalist said an appropriately responsible mindset - which doesn't seem to be always the case, nor particularly encouraged.

----

And the amendment as originally framed was meant as a check on federal encroachment upon state power as far as I'm aware; and was interpreted as such in numerous legal precedents until the Heller case which asserted an individual right; although I'm not sure how that was derived. On which arms are constitutionally protected, iirc the court decided it was those "in common use" or that could be "used in a militia" which seems rather broad to me.

So nobody wants to comment on how Obama lied about his reasons for not supporting the Born Alive bill?

Pity.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You skipped part of the story then:

The 2003 version with the wording Obama wanted never got to the state senate, however.

It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Maybe he can use that to help his "no experience" problem?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Did Obama shoot it down personally when he was chair?

Yes, the report says that he voted against it while he was Chair in 2003, when the necessary/requested verbiage was changed.

Where did you get this from and what his statement on the issue then?