The Unmitigated Gall! Democrats to introduce Gun Control legislation tomorrow!

Change what?

Your post doesn't make any sense but I agree on the methods of what it takes to change the Constitution.

reply to post by Adyta


Well since the law has'nt passed and in all reality has no chance of being passed by a republican congress your point is moot.

reply to post by kro32


He was referring to this "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."

reply to post by SpaDe_


Oh I see, yes he would be correct in that assumption however once again he should notice that it doesn't say any and all arms. Once America started relying on a regular army and there were no need for militias is when gun control laws started coming up.

Andrew Jackson was the first President in the early 1800's to introduce gun laws. I'm sure the founding fathers would have had gun restrictions also had they not had to rely on the populace to fight against the British.

Originally posted by kro32
Per the Constitution he is exactly correct. If you don't like it that's something you'll have to take up with the people who wrote it.

Show me in the Constitution where it says that the government has the right to constrain our rights.

Originally posted by kro32
And for the record the 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear any and all arms. It was purposefully written to be flexible in that regards depending on how the future Congress's wanted to set laws to it. The basic right is there but not the specifics.

Yes, it does... and it's not flexible at all, the definition of "arms" is "weapons". Arms doesn't mean "some weapons", it means all weapons. Why do you think it's still perfectly legal to own a machine gun, tank, field artillery, fighter jets, grenade launchers, etc.?

Originally posted by kro32
Change what?

Your post doesn't make any sense but I agree on the methods of what it takes to change the Constitution.

YOU are adding the qualification" keep and bear arms EXCEPT these evil black scary ones...

We've had this very discussion before (here) I'll not waste further breathe (text) trying to argue any of the bill of rights and the founders common sense intentions with you kro.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

FACE IT THE FOUNDERS HAD Uncommon BAWLZ ! We've been coasting on them and their individual sacrifices for over 200 years. That reserve is about empty.


www.oaknorton.com...

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by kro32

 

Yeah, Obama supposedly believes everyone has the individual right to bear arms.

Just because you have an individual right, does not mean the government can't constrain the exercise of that right. - Barack Obama

Yeah, a real Constitutional hero, that one is.

Are you unfamiliar with the idea that just because you have the right to speech, the government can constrain your right to scream fire in a crowded theater.

Can you explain what exactly is 'unConstitutional" about the idea of individual rights being constrained by the government?

Originally posted by lokdog
reply to post by The GUT

 

Yes there are members of congress who would love nothing more than to take away peoples guns. They also don'y have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it done.

I starred you for the fighting spirit, lokdog. And I hope that's true about their chances.

But "they" are experts at attrition and we've let 'em get away with so much; A little here, a little there. Some would be happy just to get us down to single shot bolt action 22's.

Most--these days--would still think they had their gun rights in that situation, but...

I posted the following vid in another related thread yesterday. Archie Bunker on gun control, international banking conspiracies, airport pat-downs, and an absolute fool-proof method to deter sky-jackings.

If you know history at all you will know that the founders, Hamilton and those who believed as he did, did not even want the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. They believed the Constitution was fine as written and it was Jefferson and his supporters who added it in. Hamilton only agreed in order to gain their support for the Constitution so it almost wasn't added meaning they really didn't put much weight into it.

Also there was little trust of the general populace which is why you don't see direct elections of the President. Hamilton and his boys thought people too stupid to make the right decision hence the electoral vote. To imagine these guys would have wanted people to have every weapon available when they don't even trust them to vote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But what you or I believe is irrelevant since it's the Supreme Court that ultimately decides what they meant and so far your on the losing side of that arguement.

Originally posted by VicDiaz89

This wont effect anyone who isnt a smuggler.

I believe you have a typo there. I'm sure you meant to say that it won't affect anyone who is a smuggler. A smuggler, by definition, isn't concerned with what laws are on the books. If they were worried about not breaking the law, they wouldn't be a smuggler.

The people who the laws are supposed to target don't care and do what they want anyway. The people who try to follow the laws are the only ones who get affected when government adds more restrictions. That's why people get a tad bit upset when new gun legislation is proposed or passed. It's only the law-abiding citizens who have to deal with it and everything that can possibly be used as an excuse to tighten gun laws is used to make it more difficult for honest people to purchase, carry and own firearms.

I reserve judgement until the proposed bill is made available, but I'm still wary because it's never good when they start talking about adding more gun laws.

Originally posted by kro32
They believed the Constitution was fine as written and it was Jefferson and his supporters who added it in. Hamilton only agreed in order to gain their support for the Constitution so it almost wasn't added meaning they really didn't put much weight into it.

So because they "didn't put much weight into it", it shouldn't be taken seriously?

To think of all the people who fought and died to give you those rights, hearing any American (I'm going to assume you're American) say that makes me sick to my stomach.

reply to post by Adyta


I absolutely believe in the second amendment but I also believe that Congress has the right to add restrictions to it as they do with the rest of the Constitution. The founders were not stupid and they knew it would need to changed and guided while keeping the basic belief of it.

Do you really think the founders would have wanted people to have the right to lace thier front yard with anti-personal mines and strap hellfire missles to the front hood of their pick-up? Of course not.

They did believe in the right to bear arms but as they have with alot of the Constitution they left it up to Congress to modify depending on the needs of the day. This is why they specifically told the people how to amend it. They knew it would have to be changed to fit the times.

reply to post by kro32


I agree. The government does have the right to amend the Constitution, but I don't see what that has to do with the second amendment. They haven't amended the Constitution to say we have the right to keep and bear arms, provided we pass a background check.

Instead they violate the second amendment and claim it's for our own good...

reply to post by Adyta


Because the Supreme Court has decided thoughout history back to the early 1800's that applying rules to the 2nd amendment is not violating the Constitution. They agree with the position i've claimed that it was the founders intention for it to be modified as the Congress deems necessary.

They will however protect the basic tenent of what it stands for as in the 2 cases in 2010 that told the States they were violating it. If Congress oversteps their bounds such as something stupid like trying to ban rifles because they are more accurate you can imagine the Supreme Court would strike that down then if Congress still wanted it they would have to begin the Amendment process which is very hard to get anything through.

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by lokdog

 

Does it really matter? EVERY gun law that is passed is a direct violation of our second amendment rights to bear arms.

How would you feel if they made a law that said "You still have the right to free speech, but before you talk we gotta run a background check to make sure you're allowed to speak freely"?

...and don't say "herrr durrr that's different Adyta!"

Because no, it isn't.

edit on 7/14/2011 by Adyta because: (no reason given)

So you have nuclear weapons then?
Or are you just another sheep pretending you know your rights?

Just exactly which part of this proposed legislation is the problem?

Originally posted by Kitilani
So you have nuclear weapons then?

Hahaha get an original argument. That one comes up in every single gun rights argument... "Oh # I just Googled it, he's right about the tanks and fighter jet! I know, I'll bring up nukes!"

We can't own nuclear weapons for self defense because it is impossible to use one without killing thousands - millions of people, causing radioactive fallout, and poisoning the land. I assume we also wouldn't be allowed to own a Death Star, if one was to ever be built.

However, according to the Constitution, we have the right to own them...

Or are you just another sheep that thinks he doesn't have any rights?

Originally posted by Adyta

Originally posted by Kitilani
So you have nuclear weapons then?

Hahaha get an original argument. That one comes up in every single gun rights argument... "Oh # I just Googled it, he's right about the tanks and fighter jet! I know, I'll bring up nukes!"

We can't own nuclear weapons for self defense because it is impossible to use one without killing thousands - millions of people, causing radioactive fallout, and poisoning the land. I assume we also wouldn't be allowed to own a Death Star, if one was to ever be built.

However, according to the Constitution, we have the right to own them...

Or are you just another sheep that thinks he doesn't have any rights?

edit on 7/15/2011 by Adyta because: (no reason given)

Death Star FTW!

Originally posted by kro32
How can you be outraged when you don't even know what they are going to propose in the legislation?

Kinda jumping the gun aren't you?

It will probably be meaningless stuff since Obama hasn't been to keen on going to battle over this topic. He's being pressured at the moment so has to do something. I'd expect it to be very minor like deeper background checks or something irrelevant like that.

It's just a political show.

The problem is the whole "proposing legislation" part. It doesn't matter what kind of poison is in the drink, does it? It will still have the desired effect.

Oh, and I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I lol'd at your "jumping the gun" comment.

/TOA

did you ever consider this was their game plan all along??? another black OP to forward another agenda.

it doesn't matter what law they think they can implement, real machinists don't worry about availability of parts, bullets, or anything related to firearms, they make them and will sell them to whoever can afford them, there is absolutely no way the government can win this battle, but do you think that matters????

hell no, its just another way for them to climb up our asses

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Oh I see, yes he would be correct in that assumption however once again he should notice that it doesn't say any and all arms. Once America started relying on a regular army and there were no need for militias is when gun control laws started coming up.

Andrew Jackson was the first President in the early 1800's to introduce gun laws. I'm sure the founding fathers would have had gun restrictions also had they not had to rely on the populace to fight against the British.

Seriously?
Can you just stop?

NOT (listing,) creating a list, has the beauty and clarity of purpose of simplicity.
ARMS.
"He was armed with a_________ when he protected himself.
I get the whole always have to comment and be confrontational in these threads but sometimes....enough!