Thread: Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It may be due to gun lovers not loving their republic enough.

It seems like these militias exploded as soon as Obama took office, and they didn't as much under Clinton.

The NRA and militias are almost completely made up of Republicans, or paranoid conspiracy independent types.

I do not see the Obama adminstration seeking to regulate fire arms at the federal level. The feds might interlope reg city or state regulation, but the NRA has absolutely no problem with the SCOTUS overturning city or state ordinances. I thought that the feds should stay out of state matters.

Originally Posted by onalandline

I am convinced of my beliefs on those two SCOTUS justices. I admit no error, but realize there is nothing else to discuss on the matter.

When the best someone can muster is "we'll see", then they have conceded the argument. Perhaps next time you will apply some critical thinking to your position before posting it.

Originally Posted by onalandline

The sales are reported in this case. The ATF will have all the information they need, and is akin to registration.

An amazing fabrication, friend.

I'm afraid you have a very self-serving definition of what constitutes a gun registry. You should know that only a small portion of the gun sales will be reported to the ATF. The reporting is restricted to the unique combination of certain types of long guns, amounts purchased and if they are purchased within a five day period. Hardly a gun registry by any stretch.

Originally Posted by onalandline

It applies to long guns. NICS.

No it doesn't. The long gun restriction is a new directive by the Justice Dept. Why would the Justice Dept enact a new directive that covers something that already (according to you) exists? I asked you for the clause in the NICS that addresses multiple gun sales. You had claimed (I don't know why I have to constantly remind you of what you have already said here) that the NICS "would have prevented most of the sales that the BATFE forced gun retailers to make". Having reviewed the law, I can see no such multiple sale restriction, so please enlighten me on the clause where it can be found.

As far as I can tell, the reporting of multiple gun purchases by dealers has been a completely voluntary one, and NOT a mandated one (unless that particular State mandates it).

Originally Posted by onalandline

I never said throw out all regulations. There are plenty already. Implementing more will just affect law-abiding citizens. Do you really think gun bans, restrictions, etc. prevent crime? Come on.

Once again, you think that you can play both sides of this issue. You really should try to be more consistent.

You claim to be for existing gun regulations but against any new ones. Your reasoning being that new laws only affect the law-abiding (an odd observation that I have previously addressed here many times) and that new gun laws would not positively affect crime. Apparently you believe that existing gun laws are both effective and necessary, otherwise you'd be supporting something at the expense of the very parameters you claimed to hold so dear. Namely that a gun law should be shown to be both effective (against crime) and necessary. These are YOUR parameters, friend, not mine.

Your position only further heightens the fact that your views on new gun laws are exclusively dependent on your zealotry and not logical reason.

Originally Posted by onalandline

Originally Posted by Danct

You're using a flawed model. We don't dismiss new thoughts based on ideology here. This is America, friend. If a law is put forward that has support and you disagree with it based on factual evidence and not on bias, then you have a formed opinion based on critical thinking and can lobby your representatives or protest, march, write letters to the editor etc to persuade against the new legislation.
Unfortunately, what YOU are proposing is to cry "ouch" before anyone has even poked ya'. Sorta like putting the cart before the horse.

Look at it as a preemptive strike. Much easier to retain freedoms than to get them back. Who's got the flawed model of thinking? You.

There. You have just made my point FOR me. You're proposing to "preemptively" reject ANY new gun law regardless of what it is, what it addresses, or what the Constitutional ramifications of its enactment would be, simply out of hand. Without, by the way, even looking at its merits. An Authoritarian model if ever there was one.

I outlined four different methods (there are others) to effect the outcome of any proposed piece of legislation, BEFORE it is voted on. For you to imply that I am recommending you lay down and not use your Constitutional right of expression and redress until AFTER it becomes law is the epitome of a straw man fallacy.

Your attempt to use an appeal to fear fallacy is also shady at best. When you use the legal tools available to you as any citizen DURING the process of legislation, AND if in spite of this diligence a particular new law even manages to get through (highly unlikely) there are the courts to decide if the law is Constitutional or not. Your fears are so overblown, it's not even funny.

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Not all of the framers were vague about what constituted a well armed militia. I could dig up the letters, but I'll just run past you what I remember.

As I recollect, there was series of letters written between one or more of the framers, and some town leader on the Tennessee frontier, and they were specific about needing cannons, and the idea to store them in a central facility. They were also specific about the definition of "arms would include horses, and how this town was too cash strapped to pay for horses, and so on. The agreed purpose was to repel armed invasion.

I don't think there should be a ban on any non explosive weapon that can be carried by one person. And I never cease to be amazed at the reluctance of my fellow 2nd amendment rights supporters to define exactly which "arms" are
covered by the 2nd. If we don't define it, they can more easilly take it away.

Well I'm not familiar with the case you mentioned. Attacks by Native American were common place. As well as trying to establish a defense against other potential threats. If states wanted to they could assemble heavier weapons. City's could if the State allowed it. I agree we should be able to own any weapon. With the exeptions of unusual and extremely dangerous weapons. Yet my problems come with even the conservative judges opinions. Even In our victories which are very small. One if the most conservative Justice Scallia wrote that the right wasn't absolute. He said the government could ban dangerous or unusual weapons. What weapon does that protect against future rulings. He could have said as I did above "extremely dangerous or unusual." what weapon could a future decision be on dangerous weapons. In my mind any weapon is dangerous so it was a very hollow victory. Yet the liberal justices are even worse they said. The said in the dissenting opinion on heller vs DC that the 2nd "does not protect the individual right to bear arms." According to them it only protects states militia. Yet they use that to refer to national guard. They really said it does not protect the right to use weapons for self-defense or hunting or shooting sports. The only protection they say it provides protection for is states to have a military. You can research Heller VS DC. Read the dissenting opinion see who appointed those who made the disentting decision. So I agree with you but I don't think any one on the court does.

Originally Posted by onalandline

How do you propose to guarantee the individual right then?

What an odd question. He wasn't even expressing a desire to do that.

Are you even aware that Heller guaranteed this as an individual right?

It's not a big campaign issue. (Non of the candidates have even mentioned it.)

Originally Posted by Nemo

It's not a big campaign issue. (Non of the candidates have even mentioned it.)

"Under the Radar" slipped by you

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

As I said if the quote were true. Would you be suggesting that it is accurate.

No. I did not suggest anything as to its veracity. I was questioning how his truly stated positions could be construed as a "war on the Second Amendment". The quote you used is actually inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

I will state my opinion on the most offensive aspects. The most offensive by far is the banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons.

This is untrue and not valid.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/obamas-gun-ban/

You're getting exited about nothing.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

That is unprecedented and unacceptable. That would effectively mean I couldn't leave my shotguns to my son when I died. The same would apply to all self-loading hand guns. As well as rifles. I'm surprised given the skills you have shown in debating you would even responded to this with out selectively editing that out. That is a no go an if even attempted you will see a very real response.

You assume too much.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

Allowing lawsuits against the firearm industry as was discussed. For the misuse of there products. Not the malfunction not from negligence. Would be the same as allowing lawsuits against GM or Ford for drunk driving or reckless drivers. It would raise the price on firearms and ammo. They would be unaffordable to anyone except the elite. Yet another case where you have demonstrated to much intelligence to not know the ramifications.

A far better use of intelligence might be understanding what one is railing about. Do you even know what you are against here? You have made many assumptions based upon an original assumption that your source is actually factual.

Any lawsuit that asks a company for compensation due to the misuse of their guns stands as good a chance of victory as the car manufacturer you described above. You are very quick to buy into any fearful propaganda piece apparently. The plaintiff would need to show a willful or knowing wrong that the manufacturer partook in that might allow the fatality or injury to occur. This would be no different than any other industry lawsuit.

Don't worry though. The NRA saw to it that this industry is uniquely and exclusively protected now from virtually any lawsuits. The ONLY American industry so entitled, by the way, to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

Dumping firearms in the inner-city. Why not just cut the political correct speak and say quit allowing minorities to buy firearms.

Once again you make assumptions with no factual basis to substantiate them.

It's a shame when someone will take baseless and fearful rhetoric at face value while going to great lengths to argue against it as you have here. You started out by questioning the validity of the quotes, only to later fully defending them. Pity.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

Your calling the above minor, simple, and constitutional. Did more to prove this thread accurate than I or anyone else ever could. I had printed that almost in jest because I considered that so extreme that it had to be the hopes of an extreme anti-gun zealot. Your support of that just makes me question both you and the one you defend.

Ha! And all this is based on what? A vague and fearful quote that you posted? The one that you assume to be true without question, yet now choose to question MY position.

I suspect that you're asking the wrong questions, friend. They've come much too late.

Dan ct Did you have a Bar or Bat Mitzva ?