Does Obama want to ban guns and rifles?
09-25-2008 | 08:33 AM
#91
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Whatever you need to do to convince yourself it says something else. Go for it.
09-25-2008 | 08:51 AM
#92
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Please re-read the Federalist Papers to understand the exact meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
It's not your fault that you have been lied to by the media & Socialist Democrats with regards to firearm ownership.
09-25-2008 | 09:02 AM
#93
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
I can read. Nobody had to read it for me, or interpret it, or translate it, or say it with different stops or pauses. I'll just assume that it was proof read before becoming an amendment to the Constitution. It's not a poem or a riddle, It says what it says.
09-25-2008 | 09:46 AM
#97
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
IT means, in my words:
'In order for the People to maintain a militia, the People (also known as us) will have the right to keep guns/rifles.'
It doesn't say that we have a right to any and all weapons of our choosing. So it has no bearing on the majority of this thread.
It's strange to use logical reasoning of interpretation to protect your right to own guns, then ignore to equally justified logical reasoning of banning specific types of firearms because of their inherently greater dangerous capability.
Referencing the second amendment has no authority over whatever gun regulations we have in place. As per our justice system. To "infringe" on a right means to violate the right of. If you believe that any current gun law does that, and you can sell that to the Supreme court, then more power to you.
I appreciate the bode of confidence. Let my monkey thank you.
'In order for the People to maintain a militia, the People (also known as us) will have the right to keep guns/rifles.'
It doesn't say that we have a right to any and all weapons of our choosing. So it has no bearing on the majority of this thread.
It's strange to use logical reasoning of interpretation to protect your right to own guns, then ignore to equally justified logical reasoning of banning specific types of firearms because of their inherently greater dangerous capability.
Referencing the second amendment has no authority over whatever gun regulations we have in place. As per our justice system. To "infringe" on a right means to violate the right of. If you believe that any current gun law does that, and you can sell that to the Supreme court, then more power to you.
I appreciate the bode of confidence. Let my monkey thank you.
09-25-2008 | 09:58 AM
#98
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
IT means, in my words:
'In order for the People to maintain a militia, the People (also known as us) will have the right to keep guns/rifles.'
It doesn't say that we have a right to any and all weapons of our choosing. So it has no bearing on the majority of this thread.
I appreciate the bode of confidence. Let my monkey thank you.
'In order for the People to maintain a militia, the People (also known as us) will have the right to keep guns/rifles.'
It doesn't say that we have a right to any and all weapons of our choosing. So it has no bearing on the majority of this thread.
I appreciate the bode of confidence. Let my monkey thank you.
I have never said that the 2nd protects our rights to posess any weapon system under the sun.
It protects our right to posess non crew-served, hand and/or shoulder fired weapons.
And a select fire assault rifle fits that description.
You mention militia being made up of the people.
Who did run/command the militia?
Who was responsible for arming/equiping the members of said militia?
You are aware that some states did not have a militia at the time the constitution was drafted?
Yet these states recognized the individual's right to arms.
09-25-2008 | 10:10 AM
#99
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,588
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
IT means, in my words:
'In order for the People to maintain a militia, the People (also known as us) will have the right to keep guns/rifles.'
It doesn't say that we have a right to any and all weapons of our choosing. So it has no bearing on the majority of this thread.
It's strange to use logical reasoning of interpretation to protect your right to own guns, then ignore to equally justified logical reasoning of banning specific types of firearms because of their inherently greater dangerous capability.
Referencing the second amendment has no authority over whatever gun regulations we have in place. As per our justice system. To "infringe" on a right means to violate the right of. If you believe that any current gun law does that, and you can sell that to the Supreme court, then more power to you.
I appreciate the bode of confidence. Let my monkey thank you.
'In order for the People to maintain a militia, the People (also known as us) will have the right to keep guns/rifles.'
It doesn't say that we have a right to any and all weapons of our choosing. So it has no bearing on the majority of this thread.
It's strange to use logical reasoning of interpretation to protect your right to own guns, then ignore to equally justified logical reasoning of banning specific types of firearms because of their inherently greater dangerous capability.
Referencing the second amendment has no authority over whatever gun regulations we have in place. As per our justice system. To "infringe" on a right means to violate the right of. If you believe that any current gun law does that, and you can sell that to the Supreme court, then more power to you.
I appreciate the bode of confidence. Let my monkey thank you.
1. please find me stats of how many shoulder fired automatic rifles are used for general shootings from day to day compared to hand guns
2. please let me know how a shoulder fired automatic rifle is "more dangerous" then a hand gun
Paul is correct, we need to worry about a government that does not want its citizens to be armed.
09-25-2008 | 12:42 PM
#100
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
First off, that's the best monkey usage ever!
I have never said that the 2nd protects our rights to posess any weapon system under the sun.
It protects our right to posses non crew-served, hand and/or shoulder fired weapons.
And a select fire assault rifle fits that description.
You mention militia being made up of the people.
Who did run/command the militia?
Who was responsible for arming/equiping the members of said militia?
You are aware that some states did not have a militia at the time the constitution was drafted?
Yet these states recognized the individual's right to arms.
I have never said that the 2nd protects our rights to posess any weapon system under the sun.
It protects our right to posses non crew-served, hand and/or shoulder fired weapons.
And a select fire assault rifle fits that description.
You mention militia being made up of the people.
Who did run/command the militia?
Who was responsible for arming/equiping the members of said militia?
You are aware that some states did not have a militia at the time the constitution was drafted?
Yet these states recognized the individual's right to arms.
1. please find me stats of how many shoulder fired automatic rifles are used for general shootings from day to day compared to hand guns
2. please let me know how a shoulder fired automatic rifle is "more dangerous" then a hand gun
Paul is correct, we need to worry about a government that does not want its citizens to be armed.
2. please let me know how a shoulder fired automatic rifle is "more dangerous" then a hand gun
Paul is correct, we need to worry about a government that does not want its citizens to be armed.
1) I'm aware of a "catch 22" that there could be no armed militia if the people themselves did not have firearms to begine with. The point I'm trying to make is that this was written for the citizens of this country to be able to keep firearms in order to form a militia if need be. This was written with the ideas of militias in mind. That's it. I'm not saying anyone outside of a militia can't own a gun because that's not what it says. I'm just saying the entire writing was based on protecting a militia's right to arm itself, and by extension, the rest of us as well. "Militia" and the fact that it's one single sentence are there for a purpose. This wasn't thrown together on a whim. Some thought was put into it.
2) Fully automatic weapons are great for drive bys, police stand offs, holding several hostages in line, but not much else. That was my reference to danger. Would you rather be held hostage by some dickweed who has bad aim holding a 6 shooter, or an AK-47? My guess he has a better chance of hitting his target with the AK and some extra rounds. Again, I stress that the only counter argument to that seems to be people just saying "but I want one". But I don't see anything in the second amendment that says it has to be available to you, even if it is an "arm".
3) I didn't write or endorse any laws that individual states have passed regarding the ban of these particular weapons. But since the laws have passed, I haven't heard anything convincing enough to over turn it. I'm neither for nor against those bans. But being that they are in place, I can see the reason for them and yet hardly any reason to overturn them.
I have my gun, and I'll probably buy another one. I'm all for guns, but I'm just not sold on being for all guns. And as some of the points here are trying to point out a bullet is dangerous no matter what gun it came from; if this were true, no one would be bothered by which guns they can or can't own.
God bless America
Vote for me!
09-27-2008 | 09:19 AM
#101
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Bottom line:
Socialist Democrats want to ban ALL privately owned firearms;pistols, shotguns, "hunting" rifles.
Why?
Because an armed populace can resist their desire for a totalitarian govt.
Socialist Democrats want to ban ALL privately owned firearms;pistols, shotguns, "hunting" rifles.
Why?
Because an armed populace can resist their desire for a totalitarian govt.
09-27-2008 | 10:07 AM
#102
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Besides, even if they wanted to. Even if all your nightmares came true and they tried, the 2nd amendment says they can't. As we have discussed in the last 100 posts.
10-07-2008 | 12:30 PM
#103
I don't understand it?????
You just put a period where there was a comma. Talk about rewriting history. Lots of statements look different when you change them.
Who's the one using the BS argument? I'm not the one doing the creative grammar here. Any other part of the constitution you would like to change for your benefit while you're at it?
You just put a period where there was a comma. Talk about rewriting history. Lots of statements look different when you change them.
Who's the one using the BS argument? I'm not the one doing the creative grammar here. Any other part of the constitution you would like to change for your benefit while you're at it?
I actually cannot believe some of the things I am reading here, that an adult would argue this guns vs cars thing in all seriousness. It's all these little things, little discussions such as this one that I read here and there, hearing McCain backers talk, that make me completely lose faith in the hope for this country's future.
At this point I feel that every post needs the same disclaimer as I myself have owned guns and I think they are pretty cool. At the same time, I can acknowledge and even more importantly RESPECT that a gun's sole purpose is for killing. I also remember the lengthy lessons and training I went through with my father about how to handle and respect a weapon. Some of my questioning the desire to own massive amounts of killing tools comes from my weapons training as a child. If someone likes and wants to collect things that are meant for killing, hey - whatever - but that does not change the fact that a gun's only purpose is for killing. One could profess a desire to collect scalps - but that does not suddenly make scalps an acceptable thing to collect.
I myself have owned a few guns. At the same time, I look at someone that has a huge collection of automatic and/or assault rifles as "unhealthy" in my own opinion (remember, that is OK). I look at someone who pines away for and talks of wanting esoteric sniper rifles, etc etc etc as a stage past unhealthy. This is because I do not understand the desire to collect and amass a stockpile of things that are designed to kill. Doesn't make it right or wrong or anything beyond my opinion.
I have seen all kinds of posts and messages saying that Democrats and/or Obama want to take "all your guns away" but everything I ever see or hear directly specifically says "I do not intend or want to take your rifles and hand-guns away." Who is lying? Does anyone on this forum ACTUALLY THINK that the US Gov't would do a house-by-house audit and even then actually find "everyone's guns"??? I mean even if something were thought possible?
I have heard people interviewed on NPR stating that they were Democrats and have switched to Republicans solely because Obama is black and wants to take their guns away. These are not the people I feel should be helping to form the government that governs me. Some of the comments in this thread makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck in the ways they remind me of the comments from some of these people. It's scary. I am afraid for our country. I could not care less if someone way out in the boonies wants to own a gazillion guns, so long as they don't try to tell me I am wrong for having this state of mind.
Part of why I do not own a bunch of nutty guns is because I do not feel that I am capable of safely using or securing them. From my experience, I would trust other's capabilities there far less than mine until proven. Maybe that is where some of this comes from. The fact that I can acknowledge that there is a huge difference between someone who knows what they are doing with an automatic weapon and someone that doesn't, which is far and away more important than whether or not we all should have them.
10-07-2008 | 12:46 PM
#104
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Yes, guns are for killing.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion that gun collectors are "unhealthy".
However, your opinion must not have any bearing on what others desire.
If I want to buy three firearms in one month, I must be allowed to do so, as there is no justifiable reason/argument to the contrary.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; people have the right to own non crew served, individually operated firearms. Which covers every firearm from a pistol to an M4 assault rifle.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion that gun collectors are "unhealthy".
However, your opinion must not have any bearing on what others desire.
If I want to buy three firearms in one month, I must be allowed to do so, as there is no justifiable reason/argument to the contrary.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; people have the right to own non crew served, individually operated firearms. Which covers every firearm from a pistol to an M4 assault rifle.
10-07-2008 | 01:28 PM
#105
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
If I want to buy three firearms in one month, I must be allowed to do so, as there is no justifiable reason/argument to the contrary.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; people have the right to own non crew served, individually operated firearms. Which covers every firearm from a pistol to an M4 assault rifle.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; people have the right to own non crew served, individually operated firearms. Which covers every firearm from a pistol to an M4 assault rifle.
Where does it site which weapons will be allowed/disallowed or where one can purchase X amount of guns within X amount of time?
Again, just because our right to own weapons is protected by the constitution doesn't mean that there can't be any means of just regulation on those weapons.
I'm all for guns of all kinds, but since there are already regulations in place, I haven't seen any good reason to overturn those regulations. Siting the second amendment protects our right to own weapons, which ones and how we acquire them are left for our elected representatives to fight over. There has to be a happy medium and not this "all or nothing" stance.