Only 2 Gun Laws By Obama Total---Both Benefit Gun Owners --0 Guns BANNED in 5.5 Years

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


I'm sorry you took a general statement so personally cavtrooper; I didn't recall directing any comment to you directly and honestly, this was not directed at you personally. I don't think you and I have ever had the chance to interact.

Who are "you and yours" that I'm denigrating by my comment?

Honestly, do you really think that if the US Government decided to come after you personally, you'd have much of a chance? Or any group, if, as in the scenarios that are usually bandied about as "SHTF" they didn't have to worry with the pretense of playing by the rules? And, hold the western States or coast against who and what ... "you and yours"?

I really don't know what you're talking about I will admit. How does it relate to President Obama's record on gun control?




posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Our small quarrels are really moot as our debate has been settled by the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to wit:

On the "pro-gun" side ...



(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.


... and on the side I've been arguing ...



2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56


Looks like we're done here.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Gryphon66
Why do you think the Obama administration scares you more?


Probably this oath:

I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.


The president is using someone else's SSN number.
He has presented a fake birth certificate to the American public as his own.()
This says that at minimum he has something to hide.

To put any quantity of faith in such a person is terribly foolish.
There's no way to know what exactly his deal is, but it can't be good, that's for sure...

Honest people have no reason to lie.

 

() Disclaimer
Before either you or this thread's TruthSquad OP (who seems to be MIA) robotically post a link to snopes.com or utilize the dim-witted ‘birther’ label, be advised:
I have engineered and implemented Optical Character Recognition algorithms, and their associated modules. I have disassembled Adobe® Acrobat™, Distiller™, and Apple's Preview™ (along with its Quartz™-based compression filters) and can take you step-by-step through what each software does to a document.
So be warned—unless you, personally, have come to the obverse conclusion after having undertaken a comparable technical analysis, and are able to intelligently debate the matter on its requisite levels of expertise—then save yourself the trouble.
The document was forged.
edit on 13-4-2014 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Skymon612
 



People are foaming at the mouth scared to death that Obama is going to ban guns and come door to door somehow and seize them. We read the hysteria daily here on ATS and elsewhere online. Well the truth is Obama is the complete opposite…


Opposite?? LMAO!!

Obama has made it abundantly clear there is no place in this country for so-called “assault rifles” and his attempt to pass a comprehensive bill banning them failed. Then they tried to get it done though the states (back door) and it too largely failed. Now Holder wants to make us wear bracelets to activate our SMART GUNS! Get the F out of here!!!!!



Ya, they’re not going after our guns {sarcasm alert}

* We already have laws preventing criminals from getting guns.

* We already have laws preventing the mentally ill from getting guns.

* We already have laws making it illegal for most to own a machine gun or weapon of war.

* We already have laws preventing children from owning guns.

We have ALL THE LAWS WE NEED!! There can only be ONE REASON why they keep pushing and pushing even though we already have laws on the books that cover the situations they keep using as excuses for more legislation!!

They don't want us armed.....period!



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 

So your arguing point is based upon Muskets????

You really should go and research the weapons of that era. It wasn't just muskets.

And further, if you studied this at all, you would not have made the arrogant statement that a modern day round is more damaging than that of a musket ball. Maybe you really should research medical statements/journals/documents of the time and some reports from today.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Gryphon66


The government is not coming for your guns. Neither are the leftists, the peaceniks, the socialists, no one.



Maybe you should tell that to Holder, CT Government and those that went after the people in Waco TX.


Yes, yes they are coming for the firearms of the people, not directly head on for the most part, but they are coming. And people like you drum their marching beat.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by mwood
 


So, you believe that the 2nd provides a carte blanche license to any and all Americans to own and carry any firearm anywhere they want, any time they want?

And no registration, licensing, permits, or restrictions on prior criminal record, or mental capacity, or ... any measure have any effect?

"Shall not infringe" means government has nothing to say about firearms?


Yes, basically.

How much more clear can this right be???

Nothing states Shall not infringe, except in these scenarios. Or the right to Bear Arms, except these arms here, or those because they are scary looking.

Again, another "Just a little bit" stance.

Would you except just a little bit of my fecal matter in your dinner this evening???



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Just an FYI, the private ownership of cannons was not excluded by the US at the time the Constitution was ratified, nor afterwards.

I am one of those oddballs who believe the Constitution should be interpreted as written, and when it is left behind by technology or society then it should be changed via the mechanism provided. Not merely "interpreted". The living document philosophy leaves much to be desired, IMO, since it's interpretation is soooo subjective.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" is the basis for every decision regarding the separation of state and church. I firmly support the separation as absolutely necessary, but that is not what the constitution states. Ergo...it is simply a matter of who interprets the clause and when. This is wrong, IMO



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Then we agree that the Document, as it was written, shall be adhered to today and that only when the correct process that has been laid out is walked, it doesn't change.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by macman
 


Just an FYI, the private ownership of cannons was not excluded by the US at the time the Constitution was ratified, nor afterwards.

I am one of those oddballs who believe the Constitution should be interpreted as written, and when it is left behind by technology or society then it should be changed via the mechanism provided. Not merely "interpreted". The living document philosophy leaves much to be desired, IMO, since it's interpretation is soooo subjective.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" is the basis for every decision regarding the separation of state and church. I firmly support the separation as absolutely necessary, but that is not what the constitution states. Ergo...it is simply a matter of who interprets the clause and when. This is wrong, IMO



Well said. Private citizens did own cannon before and after the foundation of the nation and there were no gun laws either state or federal restricting anything for a good long while after. The first federal gun control law came in 1934 and the first wide spread state gun control laws came after the Civil War and were part of the Jim Crow era intended to keep blacks disarmed. (Gun control has such a lovely racist past). Thus, given the actions of the FF, what laws they made, and their writings, it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that they intended to have no restrictions on citizen ownership of arms.

The argument of intent is moot, however what about the argument of "well, things have changed?" Firstly, I'd disagree with that because humans and human nature have not changed one iota. We are still driven by the same needs, wants, and desires. We still have the same general worries. We still have good people, noble people, lazy people, and evil people. Politicians and bureaucrats are still power hungry assholes. Criminals still want to rape, murder, and steal.

However. You are 100% correct. The Constitution was designed to change with the times and that process was clearly put into that document and it has been used 17 times (yes, I know there are 27 Amendments, but the original 10 were included as a group before the Constitution was signed). Until then...until the document is properly Amended, it says what it says and it's meaning should not be corrupted through "interpretation" by activist judges and greedy politicians.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
This is how I think gun ownership is being reduced.

In order to obtain a legal firearm one must pass a background check. I made this after reading "Now is the Time: The Presidents Plan to Reduce Gun Violence" back in April of 2013. All the gears (with the exception of 'The Brain Initiative') correlate to points made in the PDF. I recommend reading it if you haven't already.

You can download the PDF from this link to whitehouse.gov

Gun control isn't them showing up at all our doors one night demanding our weapons, rather the slow change of laws governing who can and who can't own a weapon.
edit on 14-5-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join