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

so, someone else admits the propensity for law to become the new tyrant exists

 

Obama’s Alleged Anti-Gun Quote Resurfaces: ‘I Don’t Believe People Should Be Able to Own Guns’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nt-believe-people-should-be-able-to-own-guns/

Obama Pledges Gun Control 'With Or Without Congress' In 2014 State of the Union Address
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/obama-gun-control-state-of-the-union_n_4684426.html

Congressmen outraged over Holder anti-gun ‘brainwash’ video
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/20/congressmen-outraged-over-holder-anti-gun-brainwash-video/

...and their position hasn't changed one bit

 

No problems, You probably just drank from the liberal well one to many times. Now yer all better!

I guess the proof has been in the pudding eh

 

The charge of tyranny has been far overplayed in my opinion. It has become a call to arms from the far right without a real basis in fact.

 

so, at what point does law become too much law?
At what point does law go from Just Law to just law........ at what point does it become too burdensome to the citizen? We already know the lawmakers and givers are exempt from the very laws they pass, LEO excuses and justify itself without public input...
When is law too much law?
With a little research (a journey worth making) Legalism.....it is a philosophy whereby the few rule the many.
unless you don't mind being ruled over, that is

 

When gun lovers realize that well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People may not be Infringed while keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

Likely not, as the Second is meant to justify the formation of well-regulated militias following the natural right to bear arms (which does not require government approval). Given that, if there is anything that no longer made the Second relevant, that would be the last Militia Act.

 

Our supreme law of the land is always relevant.

 

irrelevant and off topic.....back on ignore you go..ta ta

 

it is completely relevant and on topic; you merely don't have a clue or a Cause.

 

now there's a switch...6 months ago, you were alleging I did have a Cause..now I don't?
We've been saying all along........... it's always easy to move the goal posts.......

 

i haven't moved any goal posts by not appealing to ignorance of our own laws.

When gun lovers realize that well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People may not be Infringed while keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Well regulated Militias of the United States already have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

more pointless drivel

 

Actually individuals do, irregardless of any militia. as the Supreme Court has told you.

 

Irrelevant since Only a well regulated Militia is expressly declared as Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Speaking of which wehn I seen this thread I recalled with nostalgia back when fast and furious was a gun grab, back in the early days of scandal and outrage. Look how far the RW has come.

 

And only the right of the individual is expressly declared as not to be infringed.

 

Only that which is necessary has literal recourse to our Second Amendment; even those of your point of view must know that well regulated militias must be comprised of Individuals united for collective action in the service of their State or the Union.

 

Only individuals have the right to bear arms, militias are irrelevant.

 

You are missing the point; well regulated Militias are comprised of Individuals, united for collective action in the service of their State or the Union.

 

And militias are irrelevant to the right to bear arms. It's why you lost court.

 

Only well regulated militias are expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State; that is the point.

 

that which goes without saying............so what? another pointless post

 

Unfortunately your premise is flawed.

Since this is a gun forum, I'll confine my response to that end:

You seem to have incorrectly assumed that there are more restrictions on our gun ownership than there was previously. This is an understandable error in that the gun lobby has long railed against any new gun law that is proposed citing the "Slippery Slope" fallacy. Frankly I'm amazed how long this fallacy has held traction considering how flawed it is. I even started a thread on this some time ago. My point is that we have arguably more gun rights than we had a couple of decades ago. We have two Supreme Court opinions that effectively expanded this right and we also now have State laws permitting the carrying of guns by citizens. Even this sitting President has signed into law an expanded ability for citizens to carry loaded guns in our National Parks.

I would have to say that your fears of too many laws is unfounded.

 

really...............over 2200 gun laws on the books and you're trying to get more passed?