Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

He is right he is hardly orginal. We are confronted with a criminal government that is abusing people for fun and porfit, making war to make their bones. They are evil. They should be resisted in any way possible.

Trick is to saw em off at the right part..can be dangerous, but it is promised by the constitution..now if only the liberal bears would stop trying to bite me while getting em.


Anyhow, this silliness will never end. fantastic marketing scam by the nra...
the right to have your guns is a constitutional right...it wont be going anywhere. So, any discussion is pointless low brow, low information crap that isn't worthy of any serious discussion..it is a ratings marketing scam

reply to post by SaturnFX


That's what they said in New York and lo and behold Feinsteins bill banning over 150 different guns, and magazines.

And current legislation:

gunowners.org...

ETA:

Read HR 1506

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

That's what they said in New York and lo and behold Feinsteins bill banning over 150 different guns, and magazines.

And current legislation:

gunowners.org...

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

as was done under Reagan continues.
a ban is temporary...there is also a ban on flamethrowers and other such items.
However, if you get permits for specific functions, its all good.

Also...

States rights....isn't that the clairion call of the right wing? States can do things like ban products (alcohol, etc) that directly interfere with the personal liberties of others.
Lots of southern countys are dry...and such countys tend to be uber conservative.

So don't give me this bullocks like you give a toss about rights (not you personally, but conservatives as a whole) when they will spike the football when banning liquor and porn, then moan about various assult and automatic weapons

reply to post by sonnny1


Again, not talking about banning ALL guns - just the ones that are the easiest to use to kill lots of people in seconds.

The mentally ill issue is a complicated one - one that will take a long time to fix. The assault weapon/high capacity magazine bans and universal background checks are relatively quick things we can do now to help stop mass shootings. Who knows -- if sometime in the future, we can fix all mentally ill people so they don't feel compelled to kill lots of people, maybe we can bring back the high capacity killing machines for you folks that love 'em so much.

Alcoholics and drug addicts don't usually commit mass murder. And universal background checks will at least slow down their ability to purchase guns (because they usually have criminal records).

reply to post by SaturnFX


Nope Feinsteins bill has no sunset, Flame throwers are legal hell go to Youtube and you can learn to make your own explosives are banned still go to youtube and learn to make your own.

Suppressors are "illegal" and have to get ATF permission and a person can go to youtube and learn to make their own my favorite is the oil filter suppressor.

So what has all the laws stopped?


Last time they are not "assault weapons" since no military in the world carries them,

reply to post by kaylaluv

You can't kill someone with words

oh but you can and it's happened sooooo very much that certain "words" carry a penalty for mere utterance.

propaganda IS words and has killed more than any gun ever

reply to post by kaylaluv


I really think you don't understand what our Second Amendment is all about...........

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights by the framers of our Constitution to provide citizens a means of defending themselves against a tyrannical government.

If you truly believe our Government has our best interests at heart, then I don't know what to say to you. I could show you plenty of examples of consistent usurping of our rights. It is clear that there is an all out attack by this Administration, past Administrations, to circumvent what our founders were so desperately worried about when they made the Constitution.

They are using these murders to justify banning guns. Period. Once they take one away, they will push to take all away. History is clear on what Tyrannical Governments do. Do you really think this Government isn't Tyrannical, or hasn't pushed its Agenda ? Please.

The purpose of the Left’s attack on our Second Amendment rights is not to make us safe from criminals or the criminally insane, for at the same time these political opportunists attack our right to keep and bear arms, they defend the right of the criminally insane to wander free among us. They place a higher priority on disarming the populous than on protecting it or its children. They promote and pass “feel-good laws,” and ignore the inevitable consequences. They create “gun-free” zones that become shooting galleries for lunatics, then politicize the result, while ignoring their culpability

If the gun-grabbers spent as much time and effort devising a method for determining how we can identify and treat the dangerously mentally ill, as they devote to devising the means for depriving sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens of their means of self-defense, we would all be demonstrably safer because the criminally insane will always find the means to commit mayhem regardless of the availability of firearms.

Guns protection from government conspiracy

This last part is the truth, regardless on how you want to play the word game, or want to "justify" your position. You cannot deny it one bit.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

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

then you would be presenting a facetious argument to discount the obvious ... background checks do NOT work.

how many background checks have KEPT guns out of the hands of those who couldn't pass one ??

sure, they PROTECT the gun dealers from selling to criminals, but they do not stop or prevent any one who wants one from getting them.
and that's the only fact that counts.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Nope Feinsteins bill has no sunset, Flame throwers are legal hell go to Youtube and you can learn to make your own explosives are banned still go to youtube and learn to make your own.

Suppressors are "illegal" and have to get ATF permission and a person can go to youtube and learn to make their own my favorite is the oil filter suppressor.

So what has all the laws stopped?


Last time they are not "assault weapons" since no military in the world carries them,

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

Wow, your right..flamethrowers are actually perfectly legal.
RPGs aren't as they serve no real function..but ya..flamethrowers...killer bee's. who woulda thunk it.

Also, did you know that miniguns are legal..well, miniguns manufactured before 1986 anyhow. A total of 11 are in existence in private ownership. cost of about 400k and eat about 3600$ in ammo every second.

Guess when someone decides to shoot up a mcdonalds with a minigun that may change, but otherwise, I don't see that as a issue.

However, Bill Gates could go insane one day and mount one on a diamond encrusted hummer, then tear up a apple dealer.


I am still a fence sitter in regards to gun control btw.

Originally posted by Hydroman
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....?

you are both right and wrong.
the 10th does restrict the Feds from any involvement in any issue where they have not been granted authority.

however, in the issue of 'arms', the 2nd prevents ANY government body from infringing upon the right of the people, all people.
this includes, the state, the municipalities, DC and any other 'regional' application of said 'statutes'.

reply to post by kaylaluv

They pick the weapon that is the easiest to use to kill lots of people quickly

well if this is true, then why didn't either shooter in Colorado or CT use the most efficient (according to you) weapons they supposedly had available to them those days ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You can't kill someone with words

oh but you can and it's happened sooooo very much that certain "words" carry a penalty for mere utterance.

propaganda IS words and has killed more than any gun ever

Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

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

then you would be presenting a facetious argument to discount the obvious ... background checks do NOT work.

how many background checks have KEPT guns out of the hands of those who couldn't pass one ??

sure, they PROTECT the gun dealers from selling to criminals, but they do not stop or prevent any one who wants one from getting them.
and that's the only fact that counts.

I fully understand that, if I want to buy drugs, I can, whether they are illegal or not. They are a step to keep guns out of the hands of one, who in a fit of anger, decides to buy one, especially the mentally ill. We will never keep guns out of the hands of those that truly desire to have one. I realize for responsible gun owners, that this is a pain in the butt, but it does give others a sense, albeit false, of security and rational thought. It is a compromise that a majority of the country wants, and the 2nd Backers that keep fighting it, look more and more irrational to some that might fully support the rest of your agenda.

With a quick check, the FBI indicates that 78,211 denials were issued in 2011.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You can't kill someone with words

oh but you can and it's happened sooooo very much that certain "words" carry a penalty for mere utterance.

propaganda IS words and has killed more than any gun ever

Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word.

In the real world that word is "terrorist".

reply to post by kaylaluv

Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word

when you get back to reality, check up on some current events, k ??

that's great

now go join a militia and be ready to defend the nation and help out after hurricanes

reply to post by BubbaJoe

regardless, the 'intention' of checks ... the point is, they've been active for more than a decade, how's that working out so far ??

any chance you noticed that in the regions with the most gun control are also where you'll find the most outrageous mass murders ??
but, the correlation is not relevant, right ?

but it does give others a sense, albeit false, of security and rational thought

so, you are promoting a false sense of security as the sole foundation for this measure ??

no, a compromise involves both sides reaching an agreement.
this, is mandated, not voluntary or a compromise.

i don't give a rats patutti what the 'majority' wants ... this Republic protects the right and liberty of all, including the minority ... at least it was designed that way.

ok, so the FBI denied some 78k applicants in 2011 ... how many of them own guns anyway ??
and if 75,000 of them own guns anyway, what 'success' have the denials had ???

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word

when you get back to reality, check up on some current events, k ??

Well, if words could kill, there'd be a lot of dead people on ATS.

reply to post by kaylaluv

hahahaha, and if they didn't, these children would likely still be alive today.
children verbally bullied to death
and so many more.

yet, how many of the abusers were prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment right to say or do such abusive things ??