[Bobarian]

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?

[underground]

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.

[DManA]

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.”

[Sacajaweau]

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.

[Vaquero]

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

[Jeff Head]

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

[JPJones]

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

[AD from SpringBay]

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

[svcw]

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

[RabidBartender]

"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.

[theBuckwheat]

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?

[SMARTY]

“...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!!!

[popdonnelly]

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.

[PGalt]

Inalienable right and its necessary corollary BUMP!

[bamahead]

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

[bamahead]

PING.

[RonF]

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.

[Muleteam1]

>>"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?

[ravingnutter]

Now, now...let’s not get bitter ; )

[tennteacher]

Just the beginning.

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

Scary stuff.

[SoFloFreeper]

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.