Edwards on the issues

JaJae · 06-04-2007, 10:58 AM

John Edwards was interviewed for YouTube and at the end they gave him a series of shotgun questions. He seemed a bit uneasy over being asked questions quickly and having to give a knee-jerk response.

Nevertheless, he couldn't back down so what exactly transpired?

Interviewer: I want to end with a sort of shotgun round of questions.
Edwards: What'd you say? Shot-gun?
I: Shotgun round, that means like bam bam bam <snapping fingers> real quick answers
Edwards: Ok
I: And first round is called "Right or Privilege." So I'm gonna list something and you say whether you think for an American should be a right or a privilege
Edwards:<scared face>Gotcha
I: A college education
Edwards: Right <with a wink>
I: Healthcare?
Edwards: Right
I: A livable wage
Edwards: Right
I: Owning a handgun
Edwards: <taking a moment and nodding his head> Privilege
I: American citizenship for someone who has worked here for one year.
Edwards: Worked here for one year. That's a hard one because I think people have to earn citizenship. I think the period would have to be longer than one year. So uh privilege.
I: Five years maybe?
Edwards: Five years for sure.
I: Access to the internet
Edwards: Oh that should be a right.
I: Very well thank you senator for joining us on YouTube. It was a pleasure.
Edwards: Your welcome.

YouTube - Senator John Edwards: The YouTube Interview
The part above comes in at about 1:15 left in the video.

It's interesting he thinks everyone should have a right to just about everything asked, even internet. But, he says owning a handgun should be a privilege. The only think protected by the constitution is the one thing he says should be a privilege. There's a lot of reasons he can back that up such as the dangerousness of firearms, etc. But it just seems he has his priorities a little confused. It's also interesting that he keeps looking to his left when answering and sometimes he nods his head. I'm not sure if he was being fed answers, but it definitely looked strange that he couldn't keep eye contact when answering questions.

DosEquis · 06-04-2007, 11:13 AM

I dont think there is a wrong answer for the handgun question in that format, but there is a more correct answer. It is a right defined by the consitution, however there are things that you can do (felon) where you are no longer able to consider it a right. With that in mind you could technically call it a priviledge.

6SpeedTA95 · 06-05-2007, 08:14 PM

He clearly has no clue what is in the US constitution and that is sad

Scrum · 06-05-2007, 09:00 PM

The question wasn't if he though something was a right or privilege, it was if he thinks it should be.

Carrie Jo · 06-27-2007, 04:29 PM

Besides, recent legislation has said those with a history of mental illness will not be allowed a handgun nor fire arms...good or bad law?

Linzyhop · 06-27-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Carrie Jo

Besides, recent legislation has said those with a history of mental illness will not be allowed a handgun nor fire arms...good or bad law?

good law.

my best friend was killed because her brother was allowed to purchase a firearm in WV, he was schizophrenic and he went home and killed her.

very good law.

IminWonderland · 06-28-2007, 03:35 AM

Gun Issues are the Democrats achillie's heel. The right tears on their ankle. But Democrats mean well with the gun issue. They just don't want them to Fall into hands that shouldn't have access, and want to ensure reasonable accountability for when someone owns a gun. They understand and want that Second Amendment, they just don't want it to apply people who might, gee, I don't know.....kill someone in cold blood? Or go on a shooting rampage at a college? Or...all the other situations that end in violence and blood. So, if you want to hunt, hunt. If you want it for protection, I don't blame you. But the rest of us have to live with what decision you make to own it, and use it, and we want odds on our side our towns don't turn into the Wild West Bruce Wayne Movies we love.

AVengeance · 06-28-2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

good law.

my best friend was killed because her brother was allowed to purchase a firearm in WV, he was schizophrenic and he went home and killed her.

very good law.

You think his ability to end her depended on his right to legally purchase a firearm?

I guess if guns had been illegal, he wouldn't have been schizo. Or maybe knives would also be magically dull, and drano wouldn't be a poison.

I do find it fascinating that Edwards is about as commie as it gets, at least in knee-jerk type answers. On the Internet thing, I can see that question in two ways. Access to the Internet doesn't NECESSARILY mean that you get a free computer or Internet Service, it just means that you have a right to access the Internet, just like you have the right to accesss public roadways doesn't mean you get a free car to do it. I think I have a RIGHT to a livable wage, but I don't think anyone is OBLIGATED to provide it to me.

Linzyhop · 06-28-2007, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

You think his ability to end her depended on his right to legally purchase a firearm?
I guess if guns had been illegal, he wouldn't have been schizo. Or maybe knives would also be magically dull, and drano wouldn't be a poison.

I do find it fascinating that Edwards is about as commie as it gets, at least in knee-jerk type answers. On the Internet thing, I can see that question in two ways. Access to the Internet doesn't NECESSARILY mean that you get a free computer or Internet Service, it just means that you have a right to access the Internet, just like you have the right to accesss public roadways doesn't mean you get a free car to do it. I think I have a RIGHT to a livable wage, but I don't think anyone is OBLIGATED to provide it to me.

yes i do. he got the notion in his head that day and because he was able to walk into a walmart and purchase a gun and walk out that same day without any background check, he came home and shot her.

schizophrenics are much more likely to kill someone with guns than any other way. unless you understand the disease you can't make baseless claims. he wouldn't have killed her. he wouldn't have touched her. shooting her was a way to not have to touch her but inflict pain. if he had a waiting period on that purchase, he wouldn't have gone back to get the gun since it was a whim that he even purchased it. also they would have seen the disease on his record and not sold it to him. so yes, i think a law giving a waiting period with a background check would be a wise thing.

people who are sane and not criminals can still get their guns and those with issues would not be able to. how is that bad?

ShadowMan_xv · 06-28-2007, 02:01 PM

Thank God we don't see the need to carry arms in Europe and our violent crime rate is significantly lower than that of the US.Indeed the police force here in Ireland is not even armed except for special armed responce units.

The Second Amendment
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.

My reading of this is that it is the right of the Militia(an old word for army) to carry arms NOT individuals......Your army is the best armed in the World.Regardless of argueing over the meaning of the 2nd what is the problem of a waiting period for checks to be carried out?If you have nothing to fear then why worry?Surely this is infinitely better than the current situation in some states, where psychotic drug dealers can walk in off the street , buy their choice of weapon and go out and kill people?

Scrum · 06-28-2007, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by ShadowMan_xv

Thank God we don't see the need to carry arms in Europe and our violent crime rate is significantly lower than that of the US.Indeed the police force here in Ireland is not even armed except for special armed responce units.

The Second Amendment
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.

My reading of this is that it is the right of the Militia(an old word for army) to carry arms NOT individuals......Your army is the best armed in the World.Regardless of argueing over the meaning of the 2nd what is the problem of a waiting period for checks to be carried out?If you have nothing to fear then why worry?Surely this is infinitely better than the current situation in some states, where psychotic drug dealers can walk in off the street , buy their choice of weapon and go out and kill people?

Oh boy.

Here we go.....

Linzyhop · 06-29-2007, 09:33 AM

The Second Amendment
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.

ShadowMan_xv · 06-29-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

The Second Amendment
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.

Yes but in the context in which it was written it seems to refer to the Militia and the people is meaning the State.

If it was meant to be militia and people individually it should have said

"A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of its' people to keep and bear Arms"

But there again maybe their English sucked !