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

reply to post by Indigo5

BTW - Two posters responded to your question...Yes, was the answer. In thier view the 2nd Amendment affords children, the mentally ill, felons et al the right to purchase guns, since the 2nd Amendment does not, in thier view, specify any restrictions and furthermore enshrines the absense of any regulation.

Another strawman considering that government says pregnant teens can go kill their unborn children withnout parental consent.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

BTW - Two posters responded to your question...Yes, was the answer. In thier view the 2nd Amendment affords children, the mentally ill, felons et al the right to purchase guns, since the 2nd Amendment does not, in thier view, specify any restrictions and furthermore enshrines the absense of any regulation.

Another strawman considering that government says pregnant teens can go kill their unborn children withnout parental consent.

No....Discussing regulations on Guns IS THE TOPIC.....Abortion is one hell of a "straw man"
What color is the sky in your world?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


NO he Cannot . The Constitution has within it an Unabridgtable Authority Under Law which Overules Any Excecutive Decision on Part of the President . If Obama proceeds with Any Gun Control Policy that Vilolates an American Citizens Constitutional Rights then it would be considered grounds for Impeachment or even Criminal Charges against him .


"Do you fell Lucky Punk ? , Well do Ya ? ! " ......................

reply to post by Indigo5


Yeah abortion is such a strawman considering more people die from it than guns I don't live in the world where people tow the party line and recycle 20 year old, and older gun control wish lists.

When the antigun crowd can form an original thought get back to me.

reply to post by neo96


Guns - Self Preservation
Gun Laws - Tyranny

The Founding Fathers were Well Aware of This .........

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

He is an American citizen though.

Are you so inept at parenting that you need to be told how to in the constitution?

Why would you allow you child to have unfettered access to a firearm?

You seem confused. In this case it would be Wal-Mart et al. that would be providing "unfettered access to a firearm" to children.

Again. Why would a responsible parent allow their child unfettered access to firearms in Walmart? Seems reckless to me.

Walmart never allowed unfettered access to firearms.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Un fetter access eh?


More BS considering "dangerous" things are locked up behind glass cases and behind counters where only the seller has access.

You missed the whole thread of discussion there...we weren't discussing glass cases, but age restriction as not defined in the second amendment.

Wasnt a nanny state yet.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5


Oh...you forgot the "well regulated" part of it...as long as we are opting to ignore any court interpretations and stick with the simple, literal meaning of an amendment that was passed when Muskets were the "arms" and AR-15s were science fiction.

Not forgotten.
Well regulated means in order and ready to exercise said right and ability.
The Appleseed Shoots seem to quench that thirst.

Where oh where does it state Muskets in that Amendment????

You are aware that repeating arms were around, and not just muskets.
The technology was also that of rifled rounds.

You do know that the AR15 is not military grade, right?


Question for you. Which is the bad gun.
This

This

Or this

Hay did anyone get this yet?

Originally posted by Indigo5

False dichotomy...The choice is not NO GUNS vs. NO RESTRICTIONS.

hat's how this is going, so it is far from "false".

And the choice is not between DEFENDING YOURSELF vs. GOVERNMENT DEFENDING YOU

Wrong. Take a look at cities like Chicago or New York.

Hey...your house gets broken into in the middle of the night, it would be both good to have a gun AND call the Cops.

I agree.

Or how about you defend your family while at the same time expect the Gov. to defend the COUNTRY.

I agree with this as well.

YOU don't need access to an M4/M16 to fend off a burgler...nor do you need an RPG...nor do we want our cops or military to carry .22 pistols.

Huh? What if the burgler has an automatic weapon?

IT is not GOV vs. US...it is NOT Ban all guns vs.No Regulation or Hitler will reign!!!

Enough with the BS.

Never mentioned Hitler. And it certainly is the government vs us. Because it is the government that is trying to inhibit my ability to defend myself.

I think most gun owners could care less about the 2nd Amendment and it's true meaning. Like many have said, the 2nd Amendment is not used for duck hunting, it acts as a barrier from tyranny by giving us the right to form militias.

If guns owners cared so much about the 2nd Amendment, why don't they care about the fourth? The Patriot Act and NDAA completely obliterated the 4th amendment.

And to think people that are not in militias would get off the coach while they hobble over to their gun cabinet with their monstrous beer belly swaying dangerously and killing UN and US troops is a joke. Get that "Wolverines" crap out of your head.

The militias are the only protective body on the peoples side if the revolution did happen. Even then, how many people would support the revolution? How many people voted for Ron Paul? How many people voted for Romney and Obama?

It's nice to fantasize about being a "wolverine" and killing commies, but that's Hollywood. That's all BS.

30,000 drones approved by congress. They're coming in to help "protect" the United States in 2015.

Think we could shoot down 30,000 armored unmanned planes like some ultimate skeet shoot?

I don't want to sound like Alex Jones and a fear monger. The thing is though it's almost hard not be paranoid. look at the history of gun control and executive orders and you will not like what you find. Even then, America has arrested it's citizens before (American-Japanese citizens, 40's) and now with NDAA, they basically make it legal! I try real hard not be fear mongering or paranoid but it's hard to not be when you see history repeat itself, especially with a Young Empire that's averaged a war every 20 years!


Who knows maybe it wont happen, I can stick my head in sand and remain completely oblivious to what's going on and plaster on a smile. But I can't, I would rather be somewhat paranoid and prepare for the worst then stick my head in the sand and not give a care in the world.

Anyway, /end rant

reply to post by Kang69


on your drones issue and military tech ingeneral how much did superior weapons help Gaddafi at the end? was he not captured by armed rebels (he was bombing weeks before) drug into the street and shot in the face and then they uploaded it to you tube for the world to see. military hardwear alone does not guarantee victory and history has a way of proving that time and time again

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman

 

So my 13 year old that has ADHD and very low impulse control should be able to?

AS per the 2nd Amendment, Yes.

Maybe get control of YOUR child, before you allow them to go to Walmart by themselves.

Oh, wait, is what I am suggesting close to being a parent?? You know, being responsible for YOUR child.


Can't be.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Indigo5


OK then...Its your view that the only thing neccessary to purchase a gun is cash?...No problem with the mentally ill? Children? Felons?...cuz the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify any restrictions...and the 10th leaves it to the states...where-upon any gun-dealer at the state level is protected from abiding by any restrictions by the 2nd? ....No offense, but that is a perfect circle of stupid IMHO.

Actually, according to the second amendment, you shouldn't even need cash to get a gun. If you're dead broke, that shouldn't stop you from being able to legally acquire a gun -- otherwise your "God-given" rights are being infringed, no?

There is no face palm pic big enough for this.

Costs and or prices on an object, be it a gun or apple, does not restrict someone from access to it.
You can always, in your arguing world, construct your own firearm.

SO................your argument is bunk.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Kali74
I'm not trying to engage in any strawman arguments and of course I wouldn't let him get one or ever let him be in a situation where he could... I'm asking if by law he should be able to buy one because he is a citizen. I'm trying to have a conversation, that is all.

Good luck with that.

BTW - Two posters responded to your question...Yes, was the answer. In thier view the 2nd Amendment affords children, the mentally ill, felons et al the right to purchase guns, since the 2nd Amendment does not, in thier view, specify any restrictions and furthermore enshrines the absense of any regulation.

post by 11235813213455

 

post by macman

 

edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict such people or persons.
Please, show me where in that Amendment it states as such.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5


Oh...you forgot the "well regulated" part of it...as long as we are opting to ignore any court interpretations and stick with the simple, literal meaning of an amendment that was passed when Muskets were the "arms" and AR-15s were science fiction.

Not forgotten.
Well regulated means in order and ready to exercise said right and ability.
The Appleseed Shoots seem to quench that thirst.

Where oh where does it state Muskets in that Amendment????

You are aware that repeating arms were around, and not just muskets.
The technology was also that of rifled rounds.

You do know that the AR15 is not military grade, right?


Question for you. Which is the bad gun.
This

This

Or this

Hay did anyone get this yet?

Yeah, still waiting for the Progressives, Liberals and Anti-Gun people to answer this question.

As in normal operations, they refuse to answer some question.

reply to post by Kang69


Um.............Please go back and actually research the Pro-Gunners here on ATS.
Myself, Beezer, Neo and many MANY othershave spoken out against the Patriot Act and NDAA.

So, how does your foot taste?

Originally posted by neo96
I don't live in the world where people tow the party line

That is precisely what you do...your posts are vitriolic bumper stickers.

Originally posted by neo96

When the antigun crowd can form an original thought get back to me.

Perfect example...antigun crowd??? I own guns. I believe in the 2nd Amendment AND I think we need to regulate what "arms" are available to people who are not fit to possess them. I also believe uncompromising folks who employ dishonesty as a debate tool do nothing but damage the national discourse and democracy at large.

As long as we are attaching false and innaccurate and outright BS monikers like "antigun" to folks who simply want a discussion on regulation...I declare that those that want guns regulated are "Prolife"...and you folks who refuse to discuss any restrictions on guns are endorsing the murder of children.

See how that works? Lets play by your rules and start the discussion there and see how far we get.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Perfect example...antigun crowd??? I own guns. I believe in the 2nd Amendment AND I think we need to regulate what "arms" are available to people who are not fit to possess them. I also believe uncompromising folks who employ dishonesty as a debate tool do nothing but damage the national discourse and democracy at large.

While I find the idea that you own firearms as very very hard to be true, your statement that you believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet want gun restrictions is basically one thing in direct contradiction to the other.


You believe that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the Right to Bear Arms, as that is infringed upon with restrictions.

So no, you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. Please, don't peddle that here. I understand you have convinced yourself into thinking that you do, but your statements reflect the opposite.

Originally posted by macman

You believe that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the Right to Bear Arms, as that is infringed upon with restrictions.

So no, you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. Please, don't peddle that here. I understand you have convinced yourself into thinking that you do, but your statements reflect the opposite.

edit on 16-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

Even the most conservative justices of the supreme court who subscribe to the strict constructionist views of the constitution believe the 2nd amendment affords for regulation and restrictions.

(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.

..........

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

en.wikipedia.org...

No rights are without limits....We don't let people create panic by shouting "fire" in crowded public spaces, we don't let pornographers advertise obscenities on billboards etc. and by the strict constructionalist interpetation of the constitution "speech" did not include digital communications etc. etc.

Every "right" in the constitution is interpreted and regulated....you can do this according to "founders intent" or "contemporary context"...what the present day world requires...but either way the constitution is a LIVING document by design and neccessity.

As far as the 2nd Amendment...both the modern world and founders intent speak to a "regulated" right to bear arms.

Originally posted by macman

While I find the idea that you own firearms as very very hard to be true, your statement that you believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet want gun restrictions is basically one thing in direct contradiction to the other.

And I am not suprised that you have such a monolithic, narrow view of the issue. It is in keeping with your posts.

There are plenty of us out there.

Gabrielle Giffords, husband Mark Kelly launch anti-gun-violence group

Kelly said he and Giffords, both gun owners and Westerners supportive of the Second Amendment, would push for ambitious legislative changes in American’s gun laws: an assault weapons ban, universal background checks to close the “gun show loophole,” and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines like the one used to kill six people and wound Giffords and 13 others in Tucson.

articles.washingtonpost.com...