Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

I think this chilling quote by ObeyMe merits further discussion.

Let's plug some different variables into this equation and see if it adds up:

"Just because you have an individual right [to bear arms] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."

"Just because you have an individual right [to free speech] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."

"Just because you have an individual right [not to be searched unreasonably] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."

"Just because you have an individual right [to freely exercise religion] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."

"Just because you have an individual right [to an abortion] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."

Does anyone else find this disturbing, or are my panties in a wad over nothing?

1 posted on 04/17/2008 6:33:59 AM PDT by Bobarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: Bobarian
Does anyone else find this disturbing, or are my panties in a wad over nothing?

Yeah... on the one hand, it is disturbing, even sickening what the constitution has come to mean. On the other hand, isn't this just the status quo - aka business as usual? I don't think anyone associates Hillary with liberty, and McCain has demonstrated that "Congress shall make no law restricting free speech" doesn't include his campaign finance reform.

2 posted on 04/17/2008 6:38:23 AM PDT by underground (Viva la Socialisme Wall Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

Opps, that is awkward isn’t it:

“Just because you have an individual right [to an abortion] does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”


3 posted on 04/17/2008 6:38:42 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
He cut it too short....He should have added much more info defining "constraint" such as registration, age, felons...

But he does that with every topic...It's his FORM of oratory....and non-commitment.

4 posted on 04/17/2008 6:38:45 AM PDT by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
Keep it up B. Hussein. your doing a bang up job, and real Americans appreciate your candor.


5 posted on 04/17/2008 6:38:59 AM PDT by Vaquero (" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

I am the person I have been waiting for...and quite frankly, that the constitution has been waiting for. Take it to the bank.
I know things that all you bitter rural, religious, gun-toting folks don't know...

THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY

6 posted on 04/17/2008 6:39:06 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
He's only voicing what he's been taught.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." R.Reagan

7 posted on 04/17/2008 6:39:13 AM PDT by JPJones (Cry havoc and let loose the Freepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

Disturbing is not the word. Obama’s words are the words of a tyrant. He is a patient wolf.


8 posted on 04/17/2008 6:42:31 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

And yet there are those that say JM and BHO - no difference.


9 posted on 04/17/2008 6:44:10 AM PDT by svcw (I reject your reality and substitute my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

This is why an ignorant moron like Obama will lose. He is essentially denying that all rights come from our Creator. What a stupid candidate.

10 posted on 04/17/2008 6:44:38 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
Let us hope that by “constrain” he really meant “regulate”. However, the regulation of a right that shall not be infringed, is a slippery, and one-way, slope to prohibition, as ever-more stringent laws defining who is and who is not “debilitated” from exercising their Second Amendment right should tell us.

Indeed, it appears that Senator Schumer (D NY) has developed this line of thinking into an art form where he can say he “supports” the Second Amendment, while filing bills that cut away and cut away who can enjoy that right and where he can enjoy it.

Since liberalism, at its core is where a person lies to himself, we can expect the will lie to everyone else too. Anyone who has listened to the oral arguments in DC v Heller will hear the attorney for the District of Columbia tell the US Supreme Court that their total ban on handguns in the District alway included a self defense exemption!

The positions that both Obama and Clinton have elaborated in public about the Second Amendment is just like that bold lie: after I ban all guns, you can still hunt and use yours to protect your family. Who you gonna believe, what I'm telling you now, or the law that I told the gun-grabbers I want to sign?

11 posted on 04/17/2008 6:48:21 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

“...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right...”

THIS from a candidate whose party opposes the Patriot Act!!!


18 posted on 04/17/2008 6:59:37 AM PDT by SMARTY ('At some point you get tired of swatting flies, and you have to go for the manure heap' Gen. LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

I think the people who wrote the Constitution believed that the rights conferred restrained the government.

Of course, people of Obama’s persuasion think the Constitution is a silly old document written by slaveholders.


19 posted on 04/17/2008 6:59:45 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Unapologetically European)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

Inalienable right and its necessary corollary BUMP!


22 posted on 04/17/2008 7:05:20 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

Isn’t it liberals who are always stating that states rights are a ‘myth’?


25 posted on 04/17/2008 7:11:21 AM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traviskicks

PING.


26 posted on 04/17/2008 7:11:42 AM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

You have a right to free speech. But you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (unless there actually is one). You have a right to freely exercise your religion. But if your religion requires you to kill those who are unwilling to convert, you cannot exercise it in that respect.

Yes, the government has a right to constrain your exercise of certain rights. The question is whether or not Sen. Obama supports constraints that have an objective other than keeping you from bringing immediate harm to someone else.


30 posted on 04/17/2008 7:18:40 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
>>"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right," he said.<<

And just because Article II of the Constitution established the Office of the President, whose to say we need one?

32 posted on 04/17/2008 7:22:57 AM PDT by Muleteam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

Now, now...let’s not get bitter ; )


33 posted on 04/17/2008 7:25:00 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian

Just the beginning.

I paraphrase: Someone’s going to take a piece of your pie so that someone else can have more.

Scary stuff.


34 posted on 04/17/2008 7:26:38 AM PDT by tennteacher (Hunter Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bobarian
Yup. And much of the modern day thinking along that line was because of a guy named Feingold and his buddy:

Feingold and McCain wrote a law SPECIFICALLY restricting political speech.

39 posted on 04/17/2008 7:32:46 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson