My Hopes Regarding President Obama

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
My Hopes Regarding President Obama
348
Wed, 11-05-2008 - 7:56am

Last night I was pretty depressed. I cried when John McCain conceded. I prayed for our newly elected President Obama, and for our country.

I started thinking about this man with the paper thin record, and thinking of his words, "I'm a pragmatist", and I started to feel a glimmer of hope. Is it possible that he won't push an ultra liberal socialist agenda? Food for thought, maybe his "present" votes were votes cast so that he wouldn't "tip his hand"? Maybe in good conscious he couldn't vote to the extreme left but knew that if he didn't he could never make it as far as he needed to in the extreme environment where he was traveling up the ladder to the white house?

We really know nothing about this man aside from his thin record. Maybe he won't be the Socialist leader that we expect. Maybe, now that he is in a position of power, he will seek good council and steer our country in the right direction rather than the wrong one.
I'm praying for that, because I don't want to see the country brought to her knees with another great depression and oppressive laws that limit our success and our freedoms.

I think we conservatives should put our money where our mouths are and start praying that this man will see the light, and lead our country well. I much prefer this scenario than the Jimmy Carter scenario on steroids which messes up the country so badly that he will not serve a second term and set the African American cause back for another generation.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 5:10pm
The excuses for Obama's inability to do anything have begun.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 8:04pm

<<The excuses for Obama's inability to do anything have begun.>>


Well you can call the fact that he isn't even president yet an excuse if you WANT.....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 9:06pm

Tell you what. There isn't much logic in setting up a disconnect between my questions and the conclusion reached on the basis of the answers, or lack thereof.

Thanks for the link to the code. But as I suspected, it's a paper construct, an origami militia, not anything which is either practiced OR "well-regulated". Between "un-regulated" and "unorganized", there is precious little difference.

I think it's silly to ignore the first clauses of the Second or fail to meaningfully account for the reason behind those clauses. I think it's worse than silly, outright criminal, to sell semi-automatic weapons to citizens who are no part of a militia but instead want those weapons for personal use (against WHAT precisely--the Mongol horde?!).

Gettingahandle


Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.


Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 9:20pm

I totally agree.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 9:24pm
That is my point.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 10:20pm

As I've said before, I'm not ignoring anything.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 1:42am

True, we don't read the Second Amendment the same way. I just haven't ever gotten a good answer about why the initial clauses are there except a repetition of the same line about the RKBA of the people.

You did not answer what seemed to me the most pertinent question about semi-automatics. Why on earth would a private citizen (not a militia member) require/need/want to have a weapon with expanded killing power?

Semi automatic weapons make mincemeat (pun intended) of the idea of sport hunting (compensate in sheer firepower volume what one lacks in ability to aim well); or hunting for the sake of cheap protein----many of the semi-automatic weapons involve a major outlay of cash, not to mention what it costs to buy tags, procure/operate the vehicles (ATV, pickup, trailer, etc) to transport the prey. There's not many reasons to own a semi-automatic, other than feeling damn insecure or vengeful.

Moreover, it's disingenuous to limit what semi-automatics can do to "one pull of the trigger, one shot fired". Keep pulling that trigger or hold it down, how many shots can be fired in what period of time? Remember Virginia Tech? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/eveningnews/main2691645.shtml Columbine? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/340672.stm

DISDAIN for firearms from me? Hell no! Potential lethality in the wrong/mentally-unbalanced/inexperienced hands gives me the heebie jeebies! It's too damn easy by far and has happened far too often to say that there's no problem. Private citizens are NOT using their weapons in well-regulated settings, militia or otherwise.

Gettingahandle


Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.


Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 7:27am

I don't live next door to Thomas Jefferson, so I can't tell you why the Founders chose to put the beginning of the 2nd there, or word it the way they did.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 9:39am

Oh, please.

We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 10:41am

None of us live in proximity to, or time of the founders of the nation. We must look at their writings; try to discern what circumstances and conditions led to the use of words, phrases, and sentences; and go from there. My conclusion is based on the authors' very specific inclusion of two clauses which mention institutions/organizations no longer extant in any meaningful way.

You gave me an instance where a hunter might justify the use of a semi-automatic weapon. I'm trying to fit that into the carnage which other gun owners have created AND trying to figure out why the Bill of Rights would be invoked to protect that right to shoot birds or game. There's no need to characterize my POV as a "complete and utter load of crap". Gun violence is real.

Arguing that other weapons cost even more than semi-automatics in no way negates the fact that there's a major outlay of cash associated with purchasing, owning, and using a weapon. The "cheap protein" argument won't fly (another pun intended).

I stand by my assertion that there aren't very many instances in which a semi-automatic weapon is NEEDED, particularly given the myriad ways in which such weapons are grossly, horrendously, and lethally misused. If you invoke the Second as rationale to do an end-run around "need", then it must be the WHOLE Second rather than picking and choosing what parts serve your conclusion and which don't. And there are restrictions inherent in the Second's full wording.

The speed with which a semi-automatic can be used to kill is dependent only on how fast a shooter can pull the trigger, and his aim. And the latter can be a minor factor if a enough ammunition is being spewed out. We've seen that at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other scenes of murderous mayhem.

Gettingahandle


Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.


Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

Pages