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

You would have to ask the former members of the military.
Where I'm from it would be used as either. Boy youd better muster up some muscles an move that tree out the dang road. Or possible the less educated ones would say. Ma, you didn't put any muster on my sandwich. I wasnt aware it was common terminology outside of the rural areas.

 

I would not say Kagen an Sotomayor were anti-2nd or anti-gun. I'm sure they favor those right for the ruling elite and extremely rich. As for their subjects their words don't make me feel loved.
As a law clerk for Justice Marshall Kagan wrote a memo as follows

"The mans sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearm statues. Violate his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I am not sympathetic."

While Sotomayor joined with the dissent in macdonald VS Chicago. An exerpt reads
"the use of arms for private self defense does not warrant federal constitution protection from state regulation"
I wonder how far they go without armed protection. As long as are leaders are guarded the rest of should feel safe knowing if anything happens to us. They will still be there to protect our children.

 

The individual right you are referring to is an individual right to forms of private property, which may include Arms; but it does not exempt a person from State gun control laws if they are not part of a well regulated Militia of the United States.

Our Second Amendment clearly and specifically enumerates that a well regulated Militia (of the People who keep and bear Arms), is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Our Founding Fathers gave us our supreme law of the land and federal and Constitutional form of Government.

 

I am not sure why you developed that line of reasoning:

 

Not exactly the individual right is also in the 2nd. It was added into the amendment to prevent the average American from being disarmed like the English had tried. Now there is gun control so it isn't a question of if we are exposed to it but how much. If it is regulation like preventing felons they lose the right to vote as well. The insane as well are not of sound mind they don't know right from wrong. So if control is the issue it already is being controlled. My point is when the control turns to preventing the population from being armed. Even the militia the second does not place limitation as far as age or sex in the amendment. I am aware different regulations since have. But you can't legally use sex or age or race as a prevention of rights. So the militia aspect would have to be applied to all citizens that are of ablebody an soundmind. So basically the 2nd applies to all citizens in all aspects of the amendment.

 

Then, by definition, you are referring to a small handful of citizens. The vast majority of Americans support the Constitution, so you seem to be singling out such a small demographic that it would be unworthy of comment. Unless, that is, falsely labeling others as something they are not makes you feel better about yourself.

Perhaps you could aid your argument if you would define what constitutes a person that is "anti-2nd Amendment". It appears you are using unnecessary hyperbole.

sigh....... Once again, this point HAS been covered adequately here already. I guess you're coming late to the party. When new positions are offered it is customary to explore them here. Pity you don't wish to be held to your word.

Using appeal to fear fallacies isn't compelling, friend. If you can dovetail this quote into something relevant as to an alleged "Obama Administration's War on the Second Amendment", then be my guest, but to just hold up a quote with no context is plainly silly.

I wouldn't know because I've never met any.

I'm beginning to see the basis of your fear now. Apparently you view ANY new gun regulation as being against the Second Amendment regardless if it passes Constitutional muster or not. Interesting bit of paranoia that. I suggest you go out and buy all the guns and ammo you can possibly afford. This will make you infinity safer.

 

I'm sorry but that statement is simply not true. There is a large demographic of people just like yourself who complain loud and often about existing gun laws as being oppressive and unconstitutional. Do I not recall you yourself complaining here about a regulation concerning long gun restrictions in border states?

 

True. Unfortunately when you form opinions, as you have, based on nothing more than suppositions, conspiracy theories, and false premises, then you will only reap the reward of what you have put into it. You know what they say, friend; "garbage in/garbage out".

Your choice.

 

Which could be interpreted different ways, of course. Context is important.

This was a legal position as to the 14th Amendment. NOT the 2nd Amendment.

 

I might be mistaken and I'm sure you will inform me if I am. That 14th amendment issues was due to 2nd amendment in there view not supporting the individual right to bear arms. I believe if I am not mistaken that they
argued the word people didn't refer to individual citizens. But rather the states.

 

The following is a exerpt of a story that is definitely not from a gun friendly publication. The website is www.allvoices.com I can not find the entire http:// on my I-phone. So if you wish to verify I am also including date an title of story.

The GOP and gun control policy
By Dava Castillo
03-03-12
Principles of President Obama on gun issues:
Stop unscupulous gun dealers from dumping guns in the cities; ban the sale of or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons; increase state restriction on the purchase and possession of firearms; require manufactures to provide child safety locks with firearms. In the past he has been against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufactures . This would make manufactures, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms and ammunition. Liable for damages resulting from the misuse of their products.

Now if that is true yes it would in my mind represent the title of this thread.
This is at the bottom of the story. Most of the story is about the GOP candidates. You can also see why Mitt Romney is 2nd biggest threat to the second amendment.

 

I have reposted this as it is what the author of the above story. Used as a reference in her story as to Obamas views.

 

Not so friendly.

 

I don't think so. We'll see how they vote in the future.

 

Like I said, they really do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Yes, I am against gun registration. I am not against the NICS, which would have prevented most of the sales that the BATFE forced gun retailers to make. The NRA was instrumental in the latest version of the NICS.

I never said I was against all gun control. We have enough.

Ultimately, criminals do not follow laws.

 

My choice is to read between the lines. When it comes to the Second Amendment and other rights, I am not willing to just sit back and see them disappear, then react. I'd rather be proactive and protect my rights, even if I may be wrong at times.

 

Because they will blatantly abuse there powers just like Obama does and has been overlooked by the democratic goverment and their controlled media outlets.

 

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The problem, in a nutshell, is that the prohibition against “infringement” does not preclude “regulation.” Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.

 

From my Canadian perspective, that is very, very wise and perceptive.

 

It appears as though the reports of the Obama administration's "war" on the 2nd amendment center largly on things righties say might happen, or could happen.

It never ceases to amaze me how most of what the right thinks are Obama's campaign promises...are really just predictions from righties.

 

As long as this "regulation" does not "infringe". That, of course, is subject to opinion.

 

See post #443.

 

The only opinion that matters is that of the Supreme Court. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:

‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)

‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted)’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008 ).