Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.


5) SO, which is the evil gun.


None of the above. Guns are not "evil", they are objects, tools, weapons.

If you'd like to word the question differently I can give you a different answer, perhaps the one your are fishing for?



Originally posted by macman
IS that the only question you are going to answer?

But, 2 of those are deemed as "assault rifles".
The Tyrant 0bama has deemed them as evil. Along with the morons in NY.
Evil I say.


Back to BS? I answered your question directly and honestly.

Please show me where President Obama has deemed guns as evil???

"Evil I say"...??? You seem to be the only one declaring guns evil?
edit on 18-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Edit to add...Given you have immediately returned to baiting and BS...And I have little expectation of honest or meaningful replies...Nothing left to discuss. ..Peace..
edit on 18-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Took 5 postings for you to answer?
Well, lets take a look then.


Originally posted by Indigo5

For myself, vs. the courts or others...though there may some overlap, I choose what I beleive is the most intellectually honest definition of that phrase.

I also afford for the possibility that what it means to "ME" might not be what it means to others or the courts, and that "what it means to ME" can change if someone convinces me otherwise.

While that is great as a preface, it goes against the idea that anyone should and can read the document, and understand it.
WE don't need the courts to rule on this, if everyone were intellectually honest and removed the whole fear of an inanimate object.




Originally posted by Indigo5
Right....similiar to speech, free assembly, the press and other "rights" enumerated in the "Bill of rights"...things which the founding fathers felt neccessary to cement at the foundation of our democracy in order to ward off the danger of Tyranny that was the standard in nearly every nation across the globe at the time.

So, a right is something that can't be taken away, infringed upon or removed.
It is something that the Govt does not give, but what all US citizens are born with.





Originally posted by Indigo5
People...It was meant to distinguish between government...whether it was an "individual" right or the more general "people" as in "Militia"...or a collective of citizenry vs. a federal army?

There are clear differences within that text for Militia and Citizens.


Originally posted by Indigo5
I think it was directed at state-level collections of citizenry...in a collective form, to ward off "insurection" "Invasion" and yes, "Tyranny".

Yes to all, as they are listed.



Originally posted by Indigo5
Since the time the 2nd Amendment was written and the Militia act of 1792 and the other act that folled shortly after. The "people" has been morphed into "individual" as opposed to some form of organized Militia, state or armed "citizenry" in the armed majority sense.

The rights of the People are in coexistence with the Militia, but the Militia guidelines do not in turn dictate the rights of the people.



Originally posted by Indigo5
The right to "bare arms" for individual self-defense was never really a consideration for better or worse. George Washington needed "Militia" to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Yes, it was.
Militia was used against the British as well, nit just for a single event or conflict.
There were, at the time, Regular and Militia.
As for not for self defense? It states "invasion". Invasion of what and where is not defined. An open definition will lead to any and all invasion, either into house/home and/or State or Country.




Originally posted by Indigo5
Keep and bare arms....Ownership and right to carry....King george at the time disarmed his people through hunting laws...best made famous through the tales of Robin Hood and the "Kings Forrest"..."Kings Deer" etc.
Essentially all the woods belonged to the king...as well as the deer that roamed those woods. It was a manner of both controlling food and discouraging the "baring of arms" as being found in most forrests with a Musket or bow and arrow before that...without the kings express permission, could get you arrested.

Yes, in a way. But, that is operating on the idea that all that crafted it, knew of and remembered JUST that alone.
But, in using your argument, the banning of arms, then and now, is a way for the Govt, either Monarchy or Corrupt Republic, to control the People.




Originally posted by Indigo5

Sidenote: One of the issues that we have as a nation is that the Supreme Court hasn't actually completely ruled on the 2nd Amendment, "Speech" for example has a huge amount of case law. The closest the SCOTUS has come is the recent "Heller" ruling on the DC gun ban, which struck down the gun ban...but DC is not a "State" so they didn't settle the State vs. Fed issue...and they allowed for regulation of guns...though they did it in a weird way, not included in official "opinion"...so they kicked the can down the road. We need more court rulings/challenges to suss out the meaning as far as the law is concerned.



No, we don't need more case law to tell the People what is very plainly on their face. It is their nose.

The 2ndA is in place, created simply to allow for simpletons to read and know "I am guaranteed the right to own arms". Regardless of the moronic argument it is just for hunting, or reading it as it is to defend from any and all Militaries and Govts.
If it were just for Hunting, that would have been included and stated clearly.
Since, it is to defend, the arms of the People, by law, should be equal to that of the Militaries and Govt that may "Invade" or inflect "Tyranny".



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Back to BS? I answered your question directly and honestly.

Finally they were answered.





Originally posted by Indigo5
Please show me where President Obama has deemed guns as evil???

Oh, I get it. Back to semantics.
The want of banning of the firearm speaks for itself.


Originally posted by Indigo5
"Evil I say"...??? You seem to be the only one declaring guns evil?

Who banns things that they think are good and great for people?
Geez, semantics is very string with you.


Edit to add...Given you have immediately returned to baiting and BS...And have little expectation of honest or meaningful replies...Nothing left to discuss. ..Peace..
Um, look up and read. and maybe stop being so butt hurt over stuff.
God in Heaven only knows the crap I have to out up with from you and others.
edit on 18-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
14
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join