Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

For over 180 years Americans did not have to jump threw government hoops to own a gun

Now they tell me I have to what utter BS

Originally posted by neo96
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)

No I don't think it only applies some of the time, but as others have pointed out, there have been limits placed on other rights within the constitution, as I have said before, I live in the real world, and not in a world of Black and White. As I told Beezer, I don't know you, or where you stand on other issues, but many of the Pro Gun people demand their rights, but are willing to step on others. Apparently among many 2nd Amendment backers, that is the only portion of the Constitution that is important, the rest of it they choose to ignore. Any one who's politics are based on one issue is dangerous, or that is my opinion.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


First off it is not just a 2nd amendment issue the 4th,5th,9th and 10th are at issue.

We do not get our rights from government we never have.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I kind of agree with you - killing large numbers of people in minutes is what grenades, bombs and missles are for!
You don't need anything more than a revolver to kill large numbers of people in seconds - check this guy out


Let's see, 12 shots in 3 seconds on target is 240 shots a minute with a wheel gun, no hi-cap semi-auto required.

ganjoa

Dennis is awesome. Unfortunately the republicans re-districted his former district so he would lose, and he did.

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I kind of agree with you - killing large numbers of people in minutes is what grenades, bombs and missles are for!
You don't need anything more than a revolver to kill large numbers of people in seconds - check this guy out

Let's see, 12 shots in 3 seconds on target is 240 shots a minute with a wheel gun, no hi-cap semi-auto required.

ganjoa

12 arrows, in 17 seconds.........



Because when you train with ANY weapon, you can become precise...........

Doesnt mean they need to be banned because someone wants it that way.

Dennis Kucinich knows what its about.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

First off it is not just a 2nd amendment issue the 4th,5th,9th and 10th are at issue.

We do not get our rights from government we never have.

Agreed!
Read my OP in this thread and weep for the Bill of Rights.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

First off it is not just a 2nd amendment issue the 4th,5th,9th and 10th are at issue.

We do not get our rights from government we never have.

I can see where the other amendments come into play, and I agree, at times those have been limited as well, WWII and the Japanese interment comes to mind. In all of the gun control discussions here on ATS, this is the first time I have seen this pointed out. However, there are those while holding the 2nd up high, forget this part of our founding documents, even as they were being written 200 odd years ago.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I may be wrong, but I thought the 10th Amendment states that the Federal Government can not enforce gun laws, that gun laws are up to each individual state....?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think some of these recent measures by Obama are an attempt to quell the fear and anger that are developing around the violence worship in this country

You know I often enjoy our dialogues
But I really cannot understand how any can believe the above.
Especially someone like yourself who seems to stay up to date with current events.

All these wars and he wants to reduce the worship or violence?
Unnacountable mercs in foreign soil and he wants to reduce the worship?
Overmedicated troops but let's not stop the war
Drones.
I know what you are thinking, these aren't domestic issues aside from economic but we are talking about the same person here nonetheless.

How can you really believe this?
And do you know what's happening in Somalia?

Still you believe what I quoted?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

I can do that with absolutely ANY firearm, or explosive device..........

Banning guns is not the answer.....ANY guns.....its not going to change a thing......neither is reducing clip size...

Again the criminals arent going to care what the laws are......

And whose suppose to be enforcing that these guns arent on the street? The same ones who are responsible for GUN RUNNING in the middle east and Mexico?

call me skeptical

reply to post by ModernAcademia


The first to support the 2nd amendment huh?

I think you need to get out more mate.

www.washingtonpost.com... -605528f6b712_story_4.html

Now, let me be absolutely clear: Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.
- President Obama, Jan 16, 2013

But let me guess, that doesn't count...even though it sounds like he said the exact same thing as your quote in your title.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


When will America quell its "worship" of this President???

Dennis Kucinich, and those like him understand that our Government is overstepping its bounds.
We need more who are educated to speak on this, regardless of the left or right nonsense......

reply to post by ganjoa


Great - one guy who's got a world record. With an AR-15 and a high capacity magazine clip, you don't even have to be good shot, or quick with the hands to kill lots of people in seconds.

reply to post by sonnny1


Again, most people who go on shooting sprees don't train for years. They pick the weapon that is the easiest to use to kill lots of people quickly.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

You know I often enjoy our dialogues
But I really cannot understand how any can believe the above.
Especially someone like yourself who seems to stay up to date with current events.

Maybe you misunderstood or I didn't flesh it out enough. I said I believe SOME of these measures by Obama are an ATTEMPT to quell people's fear and anger. And some people (who voted for him) will feel better and safer, thinking that he's doing SOMETHING (in THEIR minds).

I personally don't believe any actual gun-ban measures that are being proposed by various Democrats will do any good (with the exception of background checks, and attention to mental health/guns, which I do support). I also strongly support the teams he's putting together to research the causes of our violent culture, etc., but banning any gun at this time will be useless. I know that. But MANY of his OTHER voters feel all warm and fuzzy about it and that's why he's doing it. To quell the fear. Does that make more sense?

All these wars and he wants to reduce the worship or violence?
Unnacountable mercs in foreign soil and he wants to reduce the worship?
Overmedicated troops but let's not stop the war
Drones.

Our interactions in war are a TOTALLY different matter.

And yes, I do believe he would like to see our country worship violence less. It's getting us in trouble and he knows that.

Still you believe what I quoted?

That he's trying to quell fears??? Yes! I believe that he is. His voters are turning to him and begging him to do something so he's doing something. Will it help overall or even change anything? Probably not. But it will maintain these certain voters' support by quelling their fears.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Again, most people who go on shooting sprees don't train for years. They pick the weapon that is the easiest to use to kill lots of people quickly.

You do know if EVERY so called weapon was banned, people would still commit murder?

Again, most people if not ALL who go on shooting sprees are mentally ill.

WHY is this not the first thing being addressed?




How about this?

ALCOHOLICS and drug addicts are twice as likely to commit a violent crime as someone who suffers from schizophrenia, according to a new study. The risk of a serious crime being committed by someone who is mentally ill is similar to that of someone in their teens or twenties but according to the authors does not justify submitting them to increased institutional care.

Mentally ill commit less crime than alcoholics


Lets ban Alcohol also........

Here's a real liberal idea. Lets ban people. No people? No crime. Problem solved.

I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.

Why does he mock them then eh?

Clinging to their guns and religion ring a bell?

The second was not about hunting and sport a constitutional lawyers knows this.

reply to post by neo96

Clinging to their guns and religion ring a bell?

Was he wrong?

Don't people claim to be proud of their guns and religion? If so, then why would this statement offend anyone?

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by neo96

 

Clinging to their guns and religion ring a bell?

Was he wrong?

Don't people claim to be proud of their guns and religion? If so, then why would this statement offend anyone?

Guess no one had the right to cry over the 47% comment then by that.