Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.


Ah yes, that's why they gave us NDAA and kill lists, to allow for only necessary deaths and indefinite imprisonment of citizens they arbitrarily choose to strip of constitutional rights.

And of course congress can limit who may or may not be armed using the " general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of the Constitution. After all, its necessary and proper for only government officials to be armed in this dangerous time when people are starting to think its THEIR country.


Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.

I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.


Arbitrary = can be jailed without charges or a trial or even a defense attorney. How is that not arbitrary? And how is being defenseless against it not a part of this conversation?


I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed


Incrementalism. The frogs will never notice the water's getting hotter until they're cooked.

Why does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to be armed?
Why does the Social Security Administration need to be armed?
Why does the EPA need to be armed?
Why does Health and Human Services need to be armed?
Why does the frikkin' Department of Education need to be armed?

They all are, you know. And more. Law abiding taxpayers bought all those weapons for government officials they don't know or trust who then try to make weapons individuals buy for themselves with whatever money they have left over, illegal. You have no problem with that?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
For all of those that lean left, do you want to keep the 2nd Amendment as a "right" or have it changed to a "privilege"?


It's actually a liberty.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.


Arbitrary = can be jailed without charges or a trial or even a defense attorney. How is that not arbitrary? And how is being defenseless against it not a part of this conversation?


I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed


Incrementalism. The frogs will never notice the water's getting hotter until they're cooked.

Law abiding taxpayers bought all those weapons for government officials they don't know or trust who then try to make weapons individuals buy for themselves with whatever money they have left over, illegal. You have no problem with that?



Provide me a list of individuals who were detained through NDAA who had no background or connection to terrorism. That's what I meant by not arbitrary.

Regarding incrementalism -- if/when the government enacts laws that take away all rights to bear arms, then you have a point. Otherwise, it's just paranoid conjecture. Trying to predict the future isn't a good argument.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Obviously guns are the main focus. Why would anyone not wonder about the motive given the facts. Banning rifles that killed less than 400 people in 2011 is not conducive to solving the real problem.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Obviously guns are the main focus. Why would anyone not wonder about the motive given the facts. Banning rifles that killed less than 400 people in 2011 is not conducive to solving the real problem.


And it's been found that not one "assault rifle" was used at Sandy Hook, it was 4 handguns.

edit on 26-1-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.


Arbitrary = can be jailed without charges or a trial or even a defense attorney. How is that not arbitrary? And how is being defenseless against it not a part of this conversation?


I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed


Incrementalism. The frogs will never notice the water's getting hotter until they're cooked.

Why does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to be armed?
Why does the Social Security Administration need to be armed?
Why does the EPA need to be armed?
Why does Health and Human Services need to be armed?
Why does the frikkin' Department of Education need to be armed?

They all are, you know. And more. Law abiding taxpayers bought all those weapons for government officials they don't know or trust who then try to make weapons individuals buy for themselves with whatever money they have left over, illegal. You have no problem with that?


NOAA, DOE most likely for the security of their facilities. The rest I can envision a need in all of those cases, SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse, could be those that do not desire to be prosecuted. HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation, FLDS compound and others come to mind. EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials, those crimes carry harsh penalties, and there may be those that desire not to be prosecuted. The gun supporters would like to have you believe, that they and they alone would do harm to those who remove their perceived rights, however, there are a lot of psychopaths and not so nice people in the world.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Let's card everyone who votes,run federal background checks, and make them get permission to vote.

What outraged?

You do it to gun owners and guess what people voting is more dangerous we elect people who invade "wrong" countries due to that.

True out of everything used to murder people only 1 thing do they constantly try to "ban" which doesn't stop something that is already "illegal" -murder.

Don't like Kucinich as the constitution suddenly means something to him as per the care act and sold out over an AF1 ride.

Our rights do not come from government if people don't know this if they don't understand this they never will.
edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Provide me a list of individuals who were detained through NDAA who had no background or connection to terrorism. That's what I meant by not arbitrary.

Regarding incrementalism -- if/when the government enacts laws that take away all rights to bear arms, then you have a point. Otherwise, it's just paranoid conjecture. Trying to predict the future isn't a good argument.


Incrementalism is just that ~ one gun at a time, one raid at a time, one regulation at a time, until they're gone. There are already over 2400 gun laws on the books. How many do you want?

If the disappeared don't even have access to an attorney, how are they supposed to tell you (or me) they've been secretly detained? Did you think the KGB ran articles in newspapers listing the names of the people they disappeared? It doesn't work that way and if a government makes a law that legalizes it, sooner or later they will use that law and you will never know it unless you disappear.

People naturally become defensive when government demonstrates this level of fear of its own people and that's being reflected in the high rate of gun sales. Dennis is generally on the side of logic and good sense.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


I agree. I do not agree with an "assault rifle" ban. See my comments about quelling fear in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Originally posted by neo96
Let's card everyone who votes,run federal background checks, and make them get permission to vote.


We DO "card" everyone who votes. It's called registration. You MUST be registered and a citizen of the US to vote.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 



SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.


So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?

Whoa!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Obviously guns are the main focus. Why would anyone not wonder about the motive given the facts. Banning rifles that killed less than 400 people in 2011 is not conducive to solving the real problem.


And it's been found that not one "assault rifle" was used at Sandy Hook, it was 4 handguns.

edit on 26-1-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


I had read that, the media has not come out with the fact. so it is generally remanded to conspiracy. It is believable though and serves as yet another reason to question the motives of putting guns at the forefront of the discussion to ban guns when obviously guns are not the reason for mass murders.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by jimmiec
 


I agree. I do not agree with an "assault rifle" ban. See my comments about quelling fear in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...


My bad



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yeah right they also run NCIS at the same time.

they also make them pay a $200 federal stamp tax to vote as well

and make the voter pay licensing fees etc. yeah every voter needs to be licensed!


edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 



SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.


So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?

Whoa!


I did not say they were making arrests, used the word prosecute, it is perhaps during an investigation that they could potentially be placed in harms way, I would guess they all have there own armed security teams that are possibly used at times, I am sure in other cases they work with other LE agencies. You didn't show the number of arms obtained by each agency, and I am not of the inclination to do the research on a pretty much unrelated topic.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yeah right they also run NCIS at the same time.

they also make them pay a $200 federal stamp tax to vote as well

and make the voter pay licensing fees etc. yeah every voter needs to be licensed!


edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


I am honestly having a hard time believing that any responsible 2nd amendment backer is in favor of no background checks, it sounds as if you are perfectly willing to place firearms in the hands of every violent felon and mentally ill individual in the US. Believe it or not, that is a ridiculous concept in the eyes of many that would back your agenda otherwise.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 



SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.


So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?

Whoa!


I did not say they were making arrests, used the word prosecute, it is perhaps during an investigation that they could potentially be placed in harms way, I would guess they all have there own armed security teams that are possibly used at times, I am sure in other cases they work with other LE agencies. You didn't show the number of arms obtained by each agency, and I am not of the inclination to do the research on a pretty much unrelated topic.


"It is perhaps ... could be potentially ... I would guess ... are possibly ...I am not of the inclination to do the research."

Have a nice day, bubba.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


Really violent felons don't go to walmart to buy their guns they never have in fact criminals always get guns and all the gun control laws have never prevented it.

Then why the hell should i support an invasion of privacy?

Think the second amendment or the constitution applies some of the time?

Part of the time?

Hell no it applies all the time.
edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 



SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.


So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?

Whoa!


I did not say they were making arrests, used the word prosecute, it is perhaps during an investigation that they could potentially be placed in harms way, I would guess they all have there own armed security teams that are possibly used at times, I am sure in other cases they work with other LE agencies. You didn't show the number of arms obtained by each agency, and I am not of the inclination to do the research on a pretty much unrelated topic.


"It is perhaps ... could be potentially ... I would guess ... are possibly ...I am not of the inclination to do the research."

Have a nice day, bubba.


I left it as possibles for that reason, read your original post, you provided no numbers, no evidence, no nothing, just a blanket statement as I did. Apparently we both fail in this argument, as there is no evidence on either side. Have a nice day.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join