Properly framing a subject at debate

[unixronin]

Or, in which luxobscura asks a very pertinent question:

BAMBI'S MOM IS DEAD.  IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR TO MOVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT DEBATE BEYOND DEER HUNTING, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRAMERS INTENT REGARDING SAID AMENDMENT?

I keep hearing from members of my friends list that Obama is a Constitutional scholar.  Yet he keeps trotting out the same old deer-and-ducks canard about the Second Amendment.

So:  Is he such a piss-poor Constitutional scholar that he honestly doesn't understand twenty-eight really rather simple words, or is he knowingly and intentionally trying to blow smoke up our asses?

He did, after all, issue a statement in which he claimed to support the United States Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs. DC stating that yes, Virginia, the Second Amendment does refer to an individual right, but even in that statement he clearly showed that he doesn't understand the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed."

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Actually, I just remembered what was nagging at me since yesterday. This concept is reminiscent of the UN Joint Declaration of Human "Rights". I write "Rights" in quotes because, buried in the text of this declaration, there is a clause that basically states that no "human right" may be used in any way in opposition to the will of the applicable government, and said government may restrict or prohibit the exercise of any listed "right" at any time and for any reason.

That's not a declaration of human rights. It's a declaration of privileges that you will be permitted as long as you behave and do as you're told.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

That's not a declaration of rights; that's the fine print on the soda cup of a fast-food chain promotion.

Participating localities only, while supplies last, void where prohibited.