Reid determined to have vote on gun control measures, even if Republicans filibuster

reply to post by Hopechest


And we are not talking about felons, we are talking about every single person in this country.

Free free to support totalitarianism others like myself don't, and take a good hard long look at the guns laws on the books now.

Have they stopped anything? Nope.

And,

How many more laws are needed that the law against murder already covers?

Guess people really do want a police state because that is what Reid, and those who support gun regulation truly want.

A government better armed than its citizenry.

Originally posted by eXia7

Obama has said himself that the constitution is an "imperfect document". Perhaps "fix" isn't the right word, perhaps I should say undermine instead.

Yes he did and I think the founding fathers would have agreed with his assessment. Otherwise, they would not have included Article 5.

www.archives.gov...

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And we are not talking about felons, we are talking about every single person in this country.

Free free to support totalitarianism others like myself don't, and take a good hard long look at the guns laws on the books now.

Have they stopped anything? Nope.

And,

How many more laws are needed that the law against murder already covers?

Guess people really do want a police state because that is what Reid, and those who support gun regulation truly want.

A government better armed than its citizenry.

I am not supporting nor defending gun control.

I am simply saying that it is not unconstitutional no matter how much you don't agree with it. There has always been a debate about gun-control, in fact I can't remember a single Congress....except for WWII that didn't offer up some sort of gun-control measure.

Its a debate that will always be here as far as I can see but you are in no danger of losing your guns. The Supreme Court has solidified the second amendment pretty firmly in the last decade or so.

reply to post by Hopechest


Yeah well "shall not be infringed" is rather clear.

Our rights that come from the creator is also rather clear.

The abject failure of trying to legislate behavior is again rather clear.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by eXia7

Obama has said himself that the constitution is an "imperfect document". Perhaps "fix" isn't the right word, perhaps I should say undermine instead.

Yes he did and I think the founding fathers would have agreed with his assessment. Otherwise, they would not have included Article 5.

www.archives.gov...

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Fair enough, If they wish to amend it, then hopefully it would be in the benefit of the collective, not corporate interests and bankers. I don't think Obama and Co's version of an "imperfect document" is the same as the founder fathers interpretation.. I could be wrong, since they are dead, I cannot ask them

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And we are not talking about felons, we are talking about every single person in this country.

Free free to support totalitarianism others like myself don't, and take a good hard long look at the guns laws on the books now.

Have they stopped anything? Nope.

And,

How many more laws are needed that the law against murder already covers?

Guess people really do want a police state because that is what Reid, and those who support gun regulation truly want.

A government better armed than its citizenry.

I am not supporting nor defending gun control.

I am simply saying that it is not unconstitutional no matter how much you don't agree with it. There has always been a debate about gun-control, in fact I can't remember a single Congress....except for WWII that didn't offer up some sort of gun-control measure.

Its a debate that will always be here as far as I can see but you are in no danger of losing your guns. The Supreme Court has solidified the second amendment pretty firmly in the last decade or so.

Sure, they've been at it for a long time now... but now is completely different than before.. They now have the technology, information, and assets to carry out large scale confiscation operations if they wanted to. These people have been working on a plan for a very long time, and NOW is the time for them to go all in.. look at their disapproval ratings, look at the economy and the overall breakdown of society as a whole. I'd say now is a better time than before.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Yeah well "shall not be infringed" is rather clear.

Our rights that come from the creator is also rather clear.

The abject failure of trying to legislate behavior is again rather clear.

"Shall not be infringed" is in no way preventing you from bearing arms now is it?

Only certain types. Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that Congress cannot regulate which arms you are allowed to bear.

If you can show me where it says that I will gladly accept your definition and agree your right.

Originally posted by eXia7

Apparently you didn't watch the last filibuster. glad you can read though.

Oh but I did and as usual, it was like watching a one-man rock fight. A pathetic display of legislative time and duty if you ask me. No debate, no dialog, nothing more than an endless presentation of one side of an issue. If anything, it kinda reminds me of listening to a preacher.

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And we are not talking about felons, we are talking about every single person in this country.

Free free to support totalitarianism others like myself don't, and take a good hard long look at the guns laws on the books now.

Have they stopped anything? Nope.

And,

How many more laws are needed that the law against murder already covers?

Guess people really do want a police state because that is what Reid, and those who support gun regulation truly want.

A government better armed than its citizenry.

I am not supporting nor defending gun control.

I am simply saying that it is not unconstitutional no matter how much you don't agree with it. There has always been a debate about gun-control, in fact I can't remember a single Congress....except for WWII that didn't offer up some sort of gun-control measure.

Its a debate that will always be here as far as I can see but you are in no danger of losing your guns. The Supreme Court has solidified the second amendment pretty firmly in the last decade or so.

Sure, they've been at it for a long time now... but now is completely different than before.. They now have the technology, information, and assets to carry out large scale confiscation operations if they wanted to. These people have been working on a plan for a very long time, and NOW is the time for them to go all in.. look at their disapproval ratings, look at the economy and the overall breakdown of society as a whole. I'd say now is a better time than before.

That's not even feasible.

Your not going to simply round up 200+ million guns. It would be a very very long process to remove the massive amount of firearms circulating throughout America.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by eXia7

Apparently you didn't watch the last filibuster. glad you can read though.

Oh but I did and as usual, it was like watching a one-man rock fight. A pathetic display of legislative time and duty if you ask me. No debate, no dialog, nothing more than an endless presentation of one side of an issue. If anything, it kinda reminds me of listening to a preacher.

perhaps the amount of time used was excessive, but it served it's purpose, and that was to raise awareness on the growing issue of domestic drone use.. I wouldn't call that a waste of time.

Same goes for the 2nd, anybody who stands up and presents truth is fine by me.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And we are not talking about felons, we are talking about every single person in this country.

Free free to support totalitarianism others like myself don't, and take a good hard long look at the guns laws on the books now.

Have they stopped anything? Nope.

And,

How many more laws are needed that the law against murder already covers?

Guess people really do want a police state because that is what Reid, and those who support gun regulation truly want.

A government better armed than its citizenry.

I am not supporting nor defending gun control.

I am simply saying that it is not unconstitutional no matter how much you don't agree with it. There has always been a debate about gun-control, in fact I can't remember a single Congress....except for WWII that didn't offer up some sort of gun-control measure.

Its a debate that will always be here as far as I can see but you are in no danger of losing your guns. The Supreme Court has solidified the second amendment pretty firmly in the last decade or so.

Sure, they've been at it for a long time now... but now is completely different than before.. They now have the technology, information, and assets to carry out large scale confiscation operations if they wanted to. These people have been working on a plan for a very long time, and NOW is the time for them to go all in.. look at their disapproval ratings, look at the economy and the overall breakdown of society as a whole. I'd say now is a better time than before.

That's not even feasible.

Your not going to simply round up 200+ million guns. It would be a very very long process to remove the massive amount of firearms circulating throughout America.

It's called passing a law requiring people to register. So say you don't wanna, well perhaps if little jimmy reports you to the police, he will get a reward.. Oh are you hungry? turn in your guns, and we'll give you food.. the list can go on..

reply to post by Hopechest

"Shall not be infringed" is in no way preventing you from bearing arms now is it?

Yeah it is when it defines what my guns can look like,how many rounds it can hold,how many rounds come out with the pull of a trigger, where I can or can't carry it.

Show me where in the constitution it says they can do that. when the constitution was written,when that second was written "regulate" had an entirely different meaning than what people think it means today.

reply to post by eXia7


And you register your guns than what?

They are going to pass a law requiring everyone to turn in their guns?

Oh wait, they are going to go door to door and take your weapons. Well considering there are probably anywhere from 4-10 million households with guns in them just how long do you think that will actually take?

10, 20, 30 years maybe?

I for one do not consider that a very effective way to remove guns from the populace....do you?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

"Shall not be infringed" is in no way preventing you from bearing arms now is it?

Yeah it is when it defines what my guns can look like,how many rounds it can hold,how many rounds come out with the pull of a trigger, where I can or can't carry it.

Show me where in the constitution it says they can do that. when the constitution was written,when that second was written "regulate" had an entirely different meaning than what people think it means today.

edit on 9-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Simple. If it is not written in the Constitution then it is not a constitutional law. It is not written that Congress cannot regulate your firearms therefore it is not unconstitutional when they do so.

You seem to be under the impression that Congress can only do things specifically outlined in the Constitution. That is incorrect.

Its the exact opposite actually. The Constitution was written as a restraint upon the Congress, and the other branches. Congress can do whatever they want except for what the framers said they cannot in the Constitution.

Therefore if it is not specifically outlined in the Constitution that Congress is forbidden to do something then they have the authority to do it.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

And you register your guns than what?

They are going to pass a law requiring everyone to turn in their guns?

Oh wait, they are going to go door to door and take your weapons. Well considering there are probably anywhere from 4-10 million households with guns in them just how long do you think that will actually take?

10, 20, 30 years maybe?

I for one do not consider that a very effective way to remove guns from the populace....do you?

So say you don't wanna, well perhaps if little jimmy reports you to the police, he will get a reward.. Oh are you hungry? turn in your guns, and we'll give you food.. the list can go on..

Confiscation doesn't necessarily mean door to door actions, like I said, they can provide incentives for guns, therefore people turning them in for their incentive. It would be a "soft confiscation" for a lack of better terms.

reply to post by Hopechest

Simple. If it is not written in the Constitution then it is not a constitutional law.

Oh really try reading it then pay close to the bill of rights especially the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

And you register your guns than what?

They are going to pass a law requiring everyone to turn in their guns?

Oh wait, they are going to go door to door and take your weapons. Well considering there are probably anywhere from 4-10 million households with guns in them just how long do you think that will actually take?

10, 20, 30 years maybe?

I for one do not consider that a very effective way to remove guns from the populace....do you?

So say you don't wanna, well perhaps if little jimmy reports you to the police, he will get a reward.. Oh are you hungry? turn in your guns, and we'll give you food.. the list can go on..

Confiscation doesn't necessarily mean door to door actions, like I said, they can provide incentives for guns, therefore people turning them in for their incentive. It would be a "soft confiscation" for a lack of better terms.

Which will not get the majority of guns out of society in the long run. Most people purchase guns because they want them so once again, what makes you think they want to come after your guns?

Its not even possible in the short term. Maybe they have an ideological view that guns are bad and want to start directing us down that path but it will be decades before even a dent is made, and that's if every single Congress and President from here on out has a desire to implement gun control.

That is highly doubtful.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

And you register your guns than what?

They are going to pass a law requiring everyone to turn in their guns?

Oh wait, they are going to go door to door and take your weapons. Well considering there are probably anywhere from 4-10 million households with guns in them just how long do you think that will actually take?

10, 20, 30 years maybe?

I for one do not consider that a very effective way to remove guns from the populace....do you?

So say you don't wanna, well perhaps if little jimmy reports you to the police, he will get a reward.. Oh are you hungry? turn in your guns, and we'll give you food.. the list can go on..

Confiscation doesn't necessarily mean door to door actions, like I said, they can provide incentives for guns, therefore people turning them in for their incentive. It would be a "soft confiscation" for a lack of better terms.

Which will not get the majority of guns out of society in the long run. Most people purchase guns because they want them so once again, what makes you think they want to come after your guns?

Its not even possible in the short term. Maybe they have an ideological view that guns are bad and want to start directing us down that path but it will be decades before even a dent is made, and that's if every single Congress and President from here on out has a desire to implement gun control.

That is highly doubtful.

That still doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against infringement today, so we can still be free tomorrow. And if congress/president is ultimately controlled by the same interests, it may get worse, so who knows honestly... Right now is still important.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Simple. If it is not written in the Constitution then it is not a constitutional law.

Oh really try reading it then pay close to the bill of rights especially the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?

Nothing in the Constitution says that Congress cannot regulate firearms. You keep trying to ignore this fact but its the one fact shooting down your argument.

Now if Congress outlawed all firearms then yes, they would be in violation of the 2nd and 9th amendments but they are not saying that. The framers intentionally left the 2nd amendment with only a broad definition, which they do when they want to leave legislation on the issue open to a future Congress to decide.

You see this very clearly with the Commerce Clause, nothing is strictly defined, only a broad outline. Its because they knew that things may change and the needs of society in the future may be different than those of their day.

reply to post by Hopechest

Nothing in the Constitution says that Congress cannot regulate firearms. You keep trying to ignore this fact but its the one fact shooting down your argumen

So what does this say?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights( the powers granted to government by constitution to "regulate" arms,

SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED:

1. to give the meaning or intention of; explain; interpret.
2. to deduce by inference or interpretation; infer: He construed her intentions from her gestures.
3. to translate, especially orally.

To deny or disparage other(rights) retained by the people.

Apparently that means defining rights how ever they want to "construe" them.