Obama - Civilian National Security Force?

[Lynch47]

actually, Obama's voting record says he is the most liberal - just a fact...

what voting record? He usually votes- present

[TheGladiator]

I still want to know, how does a national security force square with his anti-guns views? 

He talked about AmeriCorps the Peace Corps in the speech, as well.  Are civilians just going to sit and talk criminals and terrorists into behaving?

The press hasn't asked him about it and it's not in the transcripts. 

I guess it's one of those things to put in a speech and get applause, but, holds no water.

[mjs020294]

All I want to know is can we bring own own guns, and who supplies the ammo.

[dbucfan]

The press is just getting interested in Obama's less attractive side - more to come...

[ufojoe]

So many people were criticizing Obama for planning on sitting down (if elected) with Iran and trying to use
some diplomacy to diffuse the situation with them. But none of those folks has said one word about Bush
cutting a deal with North Korea and now this...

(IMO, this is a good flip flop. That's if you want to call it that...)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080717.htm

Is Bush Flip-Flopping On Talks With Iran?

As NBC Nightly News reported last night, the Bush Administration has confirmed reports that Undersecretary of State William Burns "will attend a weekend meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. The meeting is part of ongoing efforts to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear program." Burns, however, "will reportedly be there, not to negotiate, but to listen." Several media outlets this morning examine the motives behind what is perceived as clear shift by the Administration one that is said to have infuriated the President's conservative allies. The Washington Post reports Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "pushed for the move in a meeting on Monday of Bush's top aides, and Bush's support suggests he increasingly is determined to put aside a possible military strike in an effort to reach a deal to end Iran's nuclear program in his final six months in office." While Administration officials yesterday insisted that "the same bottom line" remains, the Post says "the diplomatic lines have become sufficiently hazy that if negotiations start in earnest, Iran will also be able to claim a diplomatic victory."

In a news analysis, the Financial Times says the decision to send Burns to this weekend's talks "would have been a big one for any president during the past three decades," but for Bush, "the volte face was a significant one." Though Bush "ultimately decided to go along with the arguments of many of his underlings," the Times says it "is not an outcome that will necessarily please Vice President **CENSORED** Cheney, who was already unenthusiastic" about a recent deal with North Korea.

McClatchy refers to a "major shift," while ABC World News called Bush's decision "a major turnaround," and added that while the White House "is insisting this is not negotiating...the fact is, they are sitting down at the table with the Iranians, and that's a first for the Bush Administration." In its analysis, the New York Times sees a "double policy shift": First, the Administration "has decided to abandon its longstanding position that it would meet face to face with Iran only after the country suspended its uranium enrichment." And second, "an American partner at the table injects new importance to the negotiating track of the six global powers confronting Iran." The Financial Times and AFP run similar reports this morning.

Obama: Bush Coming Around To His Views The Hill reports "the White House on Wednesday adamantly denied" Barack Obama's "claim that the US is negotiating with Iran by sending a high-level diplomat to a meeting with an Iranian official this weekend." Obama said that "by sending...Burns to Geneva to meet with the Tehran emissary, the White House has 'shifted course' from refusing to negotiate with the country, the Illinois senator said in a statement." While "White House press secretary Dana Perino declined to address Obama's comments specifically, she told reporters repeatedly that there has been no change in policy and there will be no negotiations with Iran unless the country suspends its enrichment of uranium, an act that would be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

ABC World News noted the White House's objection to Obama's words, but added that "the fact is, they are sitting down at the table with the Iranians," which "is essentially what Barack Obama has been proposing." In fact, former Ambassador John Bolton "said this is like getting an Obama administration six months early. Now, the White House says this is very different. But it sure sounds like it's heading in that direction."

[TheGladiator]

The press is just getting interested in Obama's less attractive side - more to come...

Some are...surprisingly.  I've seen some tougher articles in the NY Times, LA Times, and Boston Globe.   It'll be interesting to see what he says (off-script) on this worldwide tour.

[BucsBullsBolts]

I still want to know, how does a national security force square with his anti-guns views? 

What are you basing your opinion of him having "anti-gun views" on?

[SnookAU]

A "Civilian National Security Force" sounds a lot like the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment...

[TheGladiator]

A "Civilian National Security Force" sounds a lot like the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment...

Exactly.  This is how it reads:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

I'm not a Constitutoinal law expert, but, how can the "commander in chief" also form a militia (Civilian National Security Force)?
That's why we need to know what he's talking about.

He's been anti-gun for the most part, but, when pressed he falls back to a "common sense" approach.   If the Constitution allows for guns, shouldn't the approach be common sense anyway?

This seems to be a non-partisan site and gives a synopsis and/or a in-depth view of each issue:


http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Here's McCain:

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm




They're both politicans and have been vague on issues depending on their audience, but, the "civilian national security force" line seemed odd given the 2nd amendment and Obama's views on guns. 

I can't spend too much time on it, but, I thought it was interesting for discussion (especially if we had a Con Law attorney and/or history buff on add insight).

[TheGladiator]

A "Civilian National Security Force" sounds a lot like the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment...

Exactly.  This is how it reads:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

I'm not a Constitutoinal law expert, but, how can the "commander in chief" also form a militia (Civilian National Security Force)?
That's why we need to know what he's talking about.

He's been anti-gun for the most part, but, when pressed he falls back to a "common sense" approach.   If the Constitution allows for guns, shouldn't the approach be common sense anyway?

This seems to be a non-partisan site and gives a synopsis and/or a in-depth view of each issue:


http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Here's McCain:

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm




They're both politicans and have been vague on issues depending on their audience, but, the "civilian national security force" line seemed odd given the 2nd amendment and Obama's views on guns. 

I can't spend too much time on it, but, I thought it was interesting for discussion (especially if we had a Con Law attorney and/or history buff on add insight).

Bumped since we discussed Obama's anti-gun views in this thread...

Interesting that 60 Minutes is finally picking up on the fact that guns and ammo are flying off the shelves.   Of course, they're taking the "anti-gun" stance in their questioning, but, at least they're covering it...