Obama Town Hall: Obama Rips Gun Control Fiction

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yesyesyes

Criminals are not going to submit to a background check to get a gun.

Mentally ill are already restricted by state law and the federal action is a violation of state AND federal law (HIPPA). Background checks, just like laws that say you cant carry a gun into a bar, stadium or theater, apply only to law abiding citizens, not criminals. The very "law" that they think will save lives in reality costs law abiding citizens their lives by not being able to defend themselves.

Its a hollow gesture.

HIPPA can be changed with legislative procedure and each state has different laws.

but you didn't answer what law abiding citizens have to fear from changing legal procedure?

New Jersey is awash with guns that sold by private parties who also happen to be business men who sell guns through legal business fronts.

a reply to: yesyesyes

HIPPA is a federal civil / criminal law that's defined by state law. Currently a psyche doctor can only reveal what a patient says to them if it is a serious threat against another person. Since the feds have nothing to do with state / local enforcement of laws there is no legal reason to notify the FBI.

The issue revolves around the fact no amount of gun control legislation will work when the focus is on people who abide by the law. Those laws don't affect criminal mentality and by extension punish the wrong people. Instead of new laws that won't work how about they enforce the laws already on the books?

Oh, wait... they dont work because they are conceived with the mindset a criminal will follow the law.

Maybe you can give an example where a criminal has stated I was going to shoot up this theater but when I saw the no weapons allowed sign I turned my self in.

Law enforcement, contrary to the liberal left, is not the first line of defense against crime. The people are and its high time we stop punishing them through knee jerk reactions by politicians who show no interest in tackling the real problem.

Personal accountability and not societal blame.

Until we find the right mix to deal with gun crime I say we pass laws that enable law abiding citizens to protect themselves and others while passing stricter laws for criminals.

You want to rob a bank or commit a crime using a gun no problem. Make it an automatic felony with a loooong prison sentence.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
I voted for Obama and canvased the street to help get him elected in 2008. Biggest regret I have ever had. I hope this traitor to liberty rots in hell sooner rather than later. There is no room for self declared kings (by actions) in America. While we are at it, we should get rid of all Monarchies on Earth just for good measure, and ever new structure should be equipped with a rifle by default as part of an amended national building code.

Every family should have a rifle included with the purchase of a new home if they don't already own one if you ask me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I worked the phones for him in both elections. I don;t see that he has declared himself king. That is kind of a paranoid and delusional mind state.

Possibly you want to speak to the 25 or so monarchies personally?

The fact that President Obama has used half as many executive actions as either Bush, Clinton or Reagan doesn't matter to the stubborn and angry Murikan. He is Muslim and declared himself king and that's that. This is ATS. Embrace ignorance.

a reply to: spinalremain

While all Presidents have used executive orders Obama is bypassing Congress with some his. I think thats why people don't like it. Using an EO to implement a "law" is an injury to separation of powers. He was elected as President which means he has no authority to use EO's in place of Congress. He cannot use an EO to change a law.

EO's only apply to the executive branch and only within the scope of current law.

originally posted by: Xcathdra


Because people like to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean something it doesn't. Infringement in this case means preventing a person from acquiring a weapon - period.

Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could look at the statement "shall not be infringed" and twist it to mean something else.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
How is your right to possess a firearm infringed upon when you can purchase another?

Because limitation and/or qualifiers is an infringement.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Should glock go out of business and their weapons are no longer available a violation of the 2nd amendment?

If the Govt makes their firearm offered illegal yes.
If people don't buy their gun, no.

This is simple and your statement is the shining display of ignorance within this matter.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Travel inside a state and across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not.

It was stated in a vehicle.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Being able to possess a fire arm is constitutionally protected.. The type of weapon is not.

Infringing on the type is infringement.

originally posted by: macman
Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could look at the statement "shall not be infringed" and twist it to mean something else.

Well im neither an idiot nor do I have an agenda and I support the 2nd amendment. Since you are using the 2nd amendment language -

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.

Where does it protect the type of weapon available? Since the weapons we have now werent conceived of at the time the 2nd was written does it only apply to the weapons available at the time?

Since its not specifically spelled out should we not rely on the 10th amendment for clarification -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the 2nd amendment deals with the right to bear arms, but does not specify what an "arms" is, can it be established by the government?

Scotus says yes. As a matter of fact they said yes recently - Dec 2015 to be exact.
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban in Chicago Suburb

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

The decision not to hear the case has no precedential force, but was nonetheless part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them.

click link for entire article.

Infringing would be preventing access to all guns via absolute ban or putting in place such regulation that makes it impossible to to obtain a gun (DC is doing that). Restricting the type of gun has always been a lawful action by the federal government (and now state / county / city governments provided no preemption laws prevent it).


I noticed you didn't argue when scotus ruled in 2008 and 2010, defining the 2nd amendment as applying to the individual. So if an action is taken you agree with its ok and if its not there is an agenda and the people are stupid?

originally posted by: macman
Because limitation and/or qualifiers is an infringement.

Scotus says otherwise.. So are they stupid with an agenda?

Again right to bear arms.. Just like travel the action is protected but the method is not. You want to own an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine dont live in the town in illinois.

originally posted by: macman
If the Govt makes their firearm offered illegal yes.
If people don't buy their gun, no.

Scotus again disagrees with you. We saw this specifically during the days of elliot ness and al capone and the tommy guns.

originally posted by: macman
This is simple and your statement is the shining display of ignorance within this matter.

Well no its not simple. If it were the founding fathers would have been more clear as to their intent. As for ignorance you need to look in a mirror. You remind me of the term "Cafeteria Catholics" - Pick and choose the parts you like / agree with and ignore the parts you dont and act as if they have no bearing / matter to the subject.

originally posted by: macman
It was stated in a vehicle.

Which doesn't have an affect on my statement. Travel inside a state / across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not. Just like the government cant prevent a person from buying a gun but they can decide what types of weapons can and cannot be sold (back to scotus rulings).

originally posted by: macman
Infringing on the type is infringement.

Again scotus says otherwise.

As I have said in other threads bitching doesn't solve the problem. People meed to get off their asses and vote. Get involved and be heard.

Remember that often times in a republic / democracy the other person wins. Become to apathetic and the other people who want to ban guns can win.

To be honest im surprised the left has not gathered up a few million people and had them all join the NRA. Call a vote, change the leadership and suddenly the tables are turned.


I am assuming, based on your avatar, you are military. I took an oath to support / defend the constitution, federal and state, when I went into law enforcement. That oath was all or nothing meaning I cant decide to support the parts I like and ignore the parts I don't.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Well im neither an idiot nor do I have an agenda and I support the 2nd amendment. Since you are using the 2nd amendment language -

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.

Where does it protect the type of weapon available?

Same place where it states what types of firearms can be restricted.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Since the weapons we have now werent conceived of at the time the 2nd was written does it only apply to the weapons available at the time?

Do you honestly have to ask that?
repeating firearms, cannons, rifles and so on were available at that time.
At what point do you think applying this logic can only be attached to the 2nd? This is the same tired argument.
If the period based firearms is to be applied, 1st Amendment applies only to speaking in a town square and on a printing press based newspaper.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Since its not specifically spelled out should we not rely on the 10th amendment for clarification -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the 2nd amendment deals with the right to bear arms, but does not specify what an "arms" is, can it be established by the government?

Good hell.
Infringement is plain and simple.
If a law is made that infringes a right, like requiring a permit to Bear Arms, or restrict what type.........that is infringement.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Scotus says yes. As a matter of fact they said yes recently - Dec 2015 to be exact.
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban in Chicago Suburb

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Great. A Progressive based court, which was not what the Founding Fathers wanted anyway, you know, an uncontrollable unelected and unaccountable judges making law from the bench...making laws based off Case law.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The decision not to hear the case has no precedential force, but was nonetheless part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them.

Infringing would be preventing access to all guns via absolute ban or putting in place such regulation that makes it impossible to to obtain a gun (DC is doing that). Restricting the type of gun has always been a lawful action by the federal government (and now state / county / city governments provided no preemption laws prevent it).

Are you f'ing kidding me??
Infringement only happens when there is total rights removal and not a slight. That is the most moronic statement I have heard yet.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I noticed you didn't argue when scotus ruled in 2008 and 2010, defining the 2nd amendment as applying to the individual. So if an action is taken you agree with its ok and if its not there is an agenda and the people are stupid?

Legislating from the bench, regardless of the outcome is still the actions of a Progressive court where Judges are rewriting laws.
Here, take a look at what/who the Militia are/is.
Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes. All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Scotus says otherwise.. So are they stupid with an agenda?

This comes from the same group of people that ruled 0bamacare as legal, but had to have it rewritten to fall within certain terms. SO yeah, they are wrong.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Again right to bear arms.. Just like travel the action is protected but the method is not. You want to own an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine dont live in the town in illinois.

WOW. A Right defined, within the Const and BoR can not be restricted further by the states and/or cities.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Scotus again disagrees with you. We saw this specifically during the days of elliot ness and al capone and the tommy guns.

Are you really using the direct outcome, large organized crime, from Prohibition as your source?
So, lets use that, since you favor it as a platform.
Prohibition, the outlawing of consumption and manufacturing of Alcohol. This was actually pushed the correct and Constitutional way. Then...........when it was deemed as not wanted......the process was walked correctly again to reverse this.
See, the process was walked. It worked correctly.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Well no its not simple. If it were the founding fathers would have been more clear as to their intent.

My 8 year old has read it and can tell me what it means.
Seems you, and others, have some issue that does not allow you process simple statements.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
As for ignorance you need to look in a mirror. You remind me of the term "Cafeteria Catholics" - Pick and choose the parts you like / agree with and ignore the parts you dont and act as if they have no bearing / matter to the subject.

really. Picking and choosing is what you are using.
2nd Amendment is clear and simple.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Which doesn't have an affect on my statement. Travel inside a state / across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not. Just like the government cant prevent a person from buying a gun but they can decide what types of weapons can and cannot be sold (back to scotus rulings).

What is that Amendment again, within the BoR or Const???

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Again scotus says otherwise.

As I have said in other threads bitching doesn't solve the problem. People meed to get off their asses and vote. Get involved and be heard.

Wait. Do I either stop bitching, or do I work to be heard??

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I am assuming, based on your avatar, you are military. I took an oath to support / defend the constitution, federal and state, when I went into law enforcement. That oath was all or nothing meaning I cant decide to support the parts I like and ignore the parts I don't.

Military and LE for me.
You realize obeying an order that is illegal, is still illegal

a reply to: macman

In order to refuse an illegal order the order must be based on an illegal act (there will always be exceptions of course). Like I said I support the 2nd amendment I just don't agree with with the manner you are perceiving it. Using your logic law enforcement would not be able to frisk, search incident to arrest (person or car), plain view doctrine, open fields doctrine, perform a traffic stop etc unless we have a warrant in hand first.

The Supreme Court gets to decide the legality / constitutionality of laws passed / actions by the government. While the supreme court is packed full of cowards and sell outs I'm not quite ready to call their actions treasonous. The idea of making the supreme court irrelevant by some in Congress by wanting laws to elect / easier to remove / over rule supreme court rulings on the other hand is treasonous. We have checks and balances for a reason.

If we get to use personal opinion on legality of laws then we couldn't do our jobs and we would see chaos. A person can view murder as acceptable in their opinion or child molestation or wanting someones house and just takes it. O disagree on a lot of things scotus has ruled on however just because I don't agree does not give me the right to substitute their legal ruling with my personal opinion.

There is a reason law enforcement is not part of the judicial branch.

We will have to agree to disagree on the infringement topic as I don't think we are going to change each others mindset on that.


Freedom of travel question -
It's located in:
* - The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution - Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.
* - The Commerce Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

P&I Clause

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Commerce Clause

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Case law -
* - Corfield v. Coryell
* - Scott v. Sandford

Source

As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

If you don't like wikipedia I can dig the relevant info up from Cornell.

Without being able to interpret based on changing times / technology improvements our government could not function. Using a plain view interpretation of the Constitution certain peoples were property and viewed as 3/5th of a person. Women would not have the right to vote. Senators would be appointed and not elected.... etc...

In order to prevent the government from having any ability to restrict fire arms we would need to rewrite it to a point it cant be interpreted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So, case law is your basis.

But again, you "support" the 2nd, but not how it is written nor as is called out in the federalist papers and the original intent. The term "fud" comes to mind.

And all of your provided examples were changed via the process. Not by a bench of judges changing laws to mean something else.

a reply to: macman

Just as SCOTUS rulings have defined, expanded and restricted over the years, as our constitution allows for.

As for my view on the 2nd amendment I said I disagreed with your interpretation of what infringement means. The Federalist papers were written in order to persuade people in adopting / ratifying the Constitution. Trying to use te Federalist papers as a way to redefine whats in the constitution is problematic because if the authors of those papers felt the way they did it would have been in the Constitution and not an op-ed. Since the document is a compromise there were items / ideas that were dropped. Using the federalist papers as an argument of "what the founding fathers intended" is a backdoor argument to push a position that was excluded by consensus when the Constitution was formed.

Secondly the Constitution places the judiciary, namely scotus as the top court and the constitution as the supreme law of the land - not the federalist papers.

As for you last comment about bench judges I have no idea what you are referring to or how its fits our discussion so please clarify.


And yes I support the 2nd amendment, regardless of how snarky / asinine your comments are that suggest I don't.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Just as SCOTUS rulings have defined, expanded and restricted over the years, as our constitution allows for.

So, SCOTUS is truly the highest branch in the land. Your view on the power of Govt is truly about as incorrect as it gets.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
As for my view on the 2nd amendment I said I disagreed with your interpretation of what infringement means. The Federalist papers were written in order to persuade people in adopting / ratifying the Constitution. Trying to use te Federalist papers as a way to redefine whats in the constitution is problematic because if the authors of those papers felt the way they did it would have been in the Constitution and not an op-ed. Since the document is a compromise there were items / ideas that were dropped. Using the federalist papers as an argument of "what the founding fathers intended" is a backdoor argument to push a position that was excluded by consensus when the Constitution was formed.

And what does the Federalist papers state regarding the 2nd?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Secondly the Constitution places the judiciary, namely scotus as the top court and the constitution as the supreme law of the land - not the federalist papers.

Yes, that is understood.
Writing or re-writing law from the bench is the issue.

originally posted by: Xcathdra


And yes I support the 2nd amendment, regardless of how snarky / asinine your comments are that suggest I don't.

But, only as the Govt allows it. Yes, what a correct view of something so simple, put in place to give the people a safeguard against Govt, which you are fine with refining and changing, then you truly are a FUD.

originally posted by: macman
So, SCOTUS is truly the highest branch in the land. Your view on the power of Govt is truly about as incorrect as it gets.

If you aren't going to bother to take the time to read my posts why are you responding. Please point out where I said scotus was a branch of government and point out where I said it was the highest.

Scotus is not a branch of government as it is part of the judicial, which is a branch of government. Secondly it is in fact the top court in the country and the constitution is the top law of the land.

The fact I have to correct someone who is military/law enforcement is disconcerting.

originally posted by: macman
And what does the Federalist papers state regarding the 2nd?

You once again are missing the point. The federalist papers were to sell the constitution to the states to get them to sign / ratify the constitution. The intent is focused by looking at the time this took place while understanding there must be flexibility to account for changes over time.

One can argue if the federalist papers were meant to frame certain aspects off the constitution then they never would have built in mechanisms to change the constitution.

originally posted by: macman
Yes, that is understood.
Writing or re-writing law from the bench is the issue.

Which is why we have checks and balances allowing Congress the ability to override a judicial ruling that creates law.

originally posted by: macman
But, only as the Govt allows it. Yes, what a correct view of something so simple, put in place to give the people a safeguard against Govt, which you are fine with refining and changing, then you truly are a FUD.

Again you are wrong. The 2nd amendment says -

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.

Infringement would be denying the ability for a citizen to purchase a weapon / keep that weapon. Its not an infringement if a citizen can buy / keep a gun.

You really need to stop making false claims / flat out lying by saying I support a position when I don't. If you are incapable of debating this without resorting to childish tactics then why bother to be here?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Scotus is not a branch of government as it is part of the judicial, which is a branch of government. Secondly it is in fact the top court in the country and the constitution is the top law of the land.

I am well aware that SCOTUS is not a "branch" of Govt. Semantics seems to always be a great deference for some people.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The fact I have to correct someone who is military/law enforcement is disconcerting.

Oh good hell.
You go ahead and be disconcerted.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
You once again are missing the point. The federalist papers were to sell the constitution to the states to get them to sign / ratify the constitution. The intent is focused by looking at the time this took place while understanding there must be flexibility to account for changes over time.

One can argue if the federalist papers were meant to frame certain aspects off the constitution then they never would have built in mechanisms to change the constitution.

Will you just answer the question? Or are you to disconcerted with the verbiage used?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Which is why we have checks and balances allowing Congress the ability to override a judicial ruling that creates law.

That's super fantastic. Now, it wouldn't be needed if Judges didn't rewrite laws. Or case laws used as a defense.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Again you are wrong. The 2nd amendment says -

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.

Infringement would be denying the ability for a citizen to purchase a weapon / keep that weapon. Its not an infringement if a citizen can buy / keep a gun.

Do you honestly not understand the simple term of "infringement"?
How about this. Go look up what it means and let me know what you find.
Let me know if infringement means just a little, or a whole bunch.

I also want to send you some cookies. 3 boxes.
One box will have just a bit of piss in them.
The second will have a whole bunch.
The third, none.

Which cookies are you going to eat?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
You really need to stop making false claims / flat out lying by saying I support a position when I don't. If you are incapable of debating this without resorting to childish tactics then why bother to be here?

So, semantics, now the "you are being childish" retort. I suggest you review my spelling and grammar now.

well, until the gun control advocates actually become educated on what they want to regulate out of existence, we can not have a true debate. Too much emotion and media driven propaganda to have an honest and fair debate. want some examples? here are some...

You CAN NOT purchase a gun online and have it shipped to your home. You CAN buy one online, however, it MUST be shipped directly to a dealer with an FFL (federal firearms license) where they must do a background check. The only exceptions are to private persons who have an FFL which is only available as a C7R FFL (curios and relic federal firearms license) and even then, the weapons are very limited in scope.

There is no such thing as a the gun show loop hole. It is a lie. The people selling firearms at a gunshow are dealers, and must have an FFL and conduct a background check. It's the law. except in the rare occurrence that a private individual rents a both to sell offr some of his/her private collection, in which case, they are not "In the business of buying/selling firearms" and are selling a few pieces of a private collection. These sales are not regulated. Just as I may sell one of my rifles to my brother, or give a pistol to my wife.

Machine guns and fully automatic weapons are NOT the same thing as a semi auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already regulated to the point of a ban. Yes you can purchase one, but not one made after 1968 (i think is the date) and the process is exhaustive with multiple background checks and interviews from law enforcement, plus a tax.

Assault weapons is a term made up by the media and liberal politicians. It is not a category of weapon. The weapons referred to only have COSMETIC items that make them APPEAR to be military.

a reply to: macman

So you failed to understand my post and are clinging to the failed infringement argument. As for semantics you would be wrong again. You obviously didnt read my post because what you claimed I said was untrue (nice how you tried to side step / shift away from that fact).

pointless... How long have you been in law enforcement and did you go through an academy or do you live in one of those states that think military law enforcement is the same as civilian and rubber stamped a transition?

a reply to: Xcathdra

3 years. State POST certified academy.
But, also Military with a TS clearance and LE as well.


And....that whole question about the cookies stands. Can you answer that at least?

a reply to: macman

If your referring to the Federalist papers I did answer the question.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Allow me to repeat my typed statement, that is still view-able.

I also want to send you some cookies. 3 boxes.
One box will have just a bit of piss in them.
The second will have a whole bunch.
The third, none.
Which do you want?

a reply to: macman

So nothing on topic or relevant to the discussion... typical and not surprising. How about you put the cookies away and brush up on con/stat law then come back and join the discussion.

infringe

verb

1
[transitive] to break a law, rule, or agreement

"Making an unauthorized copy of the article infringes the copyright."


2
[intransitive/transitive] to limit or reduce someone’s legal rights or freedom

"court decisions that infringe civil liberties
infringe on/upon:"

"The investigation infringes on people’s privacy."
www.macmillandictionary.com...



I felt the need to post that seeing as though many people are unaware of the definition of the word. I hope this helps.


Special attention on the part in bold please. Regardless of your personal feelings on firearms, you can not randomly change the definition of a word to suit one's own agenda. Telling me I can not purchase a certain type, make, model, caliber, action type etc, is indeed limiting and reducing my legal rights and freedom. Telling me I need someone's permission to exercise said legal rights and freedom is also limiting and reducing the same said rights. Like it or not, opinions do not matter really, it's facts that count. If it is really true what the gun control advocates claim, and the "vast majority of Americans" truly do want these measures taken, then by all means, change the constitution. There is a process for that you know.