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

Thanks to the NRA

 

1) BHO: "We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment...[but we need to] get an assault weapons ban reintroduced." - 2012 Romney/Obama debate

2) Obama’s own writing was on a 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.



I have other examples, but his obvious desire to ban firearms is there, and if it weren't for that pesky 2nd Amendment getting in his way, he would have already banned firearms. Others in his administration have been even more forthcoming, Diane Feinstein, for instance, said she would support a 100% ban on all firearms.

There is little doubt what would happen if they could just 'Pen and Phone' gun legislation.

 

And the second amendment protects the right to bear assault rifles, specifically?

It says 'state legislation' right there. What does that have to do with federal restrictions?

There is a lot of conjecture right there. Clearly, he advocates restricting certain kinds of firearms, but it's a pretty big jump from there to saying he wants to ban all firearms when he has never said any such thing.

 

that's funny again coming from the aggressor side of the aisle..........sure he does, right along with Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, Boxer..............
so I cannot trust you to tell the truth about anything, just because you want my guns.

 

your illustrious opponent is from Sweden. He has lived under monarchial rule since he was conceived. He doesn't understand tyranny because he was born under a tyrant

 

Irrelevant to the discussion.

It has everything to do with BHO's desires with regards to firearm legislation. That he was running for a state office at the time is irrelevant. I said 'If he could ban them, he would.' Examining his own words, regardless of the state/federal context in which he spoke them, would lead any objective observer to the same conclusion.

He has said he wants to ban handguns, and he has said he wants to ban semi-automatic rifles. That pretty much covers 'all firearms', with the obvious exception of single shot or pump action shotguns. If you want to call it conjecture, you go right ahead. I'll call it what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

That explains some things....

 

Your evidence cites a desire to ban certain types of firearms (actually, he has since denied personally filling out that questionnaire). No need to inflate this to something it is not, friend.

Someone should inform you that Senator Feinstein is NOT part of the President's administration, as you claimed. She is one.....that's ONE of one hundred Senators. I LOVE how you people try to use fearful inaccuracies to scare the uninformed.[/QUOTE]

 

You have no idea what a non sequitur is Daniel. Both of those cases directly refute your argument.

 

Ahhhhh, so now you finally admit your error in stating that gun restrictions did not happen until the 1930's. I'm glad you've seen your error, friend. Local ordinances were binding and legal, so if you lived in those proximities,at that time then you were lawfully bound to obey those gun laws (what you refer to as "restrictions").

Amazing bit of nonsense there, fella. I don't believe I have even used the term "gun control" with you in this thread, so for you to hinge your moving and changing argument on that is absolute silliness.

In the end, what difference does it really make what you call it? Gun Control? Gun Restrictions? Gun Laws? Apparently you're unaware that they are all versions of the same thing, but by all means, please DO use now a semantic argument that will join all the other fallacies you've used here so far.

When you finally wish to advance your failing argument as to loss of liberties and too many laws, then go ahead and take another stab at it with reason and facts. Until then, spare me the low brow drone of fearful suppositions and fallacious arguments. It really makes you look bad.

 

Utterly unfair, friend. Why, exactly do you feel it necessary to smear this member based on false information? Frankly it makes you look small and petty.

You should know, when you make baseless aspersions on character, that you should at least have valid information. While it's true that Sweden does have a monarch as head of state, the King does NOT have any political power and only ceremonial duties and functions. I fail to see how a figurehead with no power can be a tyrant as you stated, but then you didn't supply us with any proof either, did you? The Swedes enjoy a parliamentary democracy that allows for full citizen participation.

We should NOT be attacking other members here based on their nationality. Surely we can aspire to a more enlightening discourse?

 

first off, I am not your friend, I am your enemy. whatever you call it, it is still an infringement on my 2ndA rights, regardless of "whatever" form it takes
you are anti gun...that automatically puts you on the other side with the gun grabbers.
You are against the Bill of Rights, and don't even know it.

- - - Updated - - -

then maybe they should butt out of America's business. Works two way, pal

 

dude, non sequiturs and other diversions are usually considered a fallacy. why not get a clue and a Cause?

 

It doesn't really matter since only Well Regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

 

Our Civil War is a Precedent regarding a Body politic being more necessary to the security of free States of the Union, than of Individuals of the Confederacy, when called out to execute the laws of the Union. The Individual right to keep and bear Arms was Infringed, for the South during their Insurrection. Our Second Amendment is clear on that.

 

Heller and McDonald.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the Supreme Court ruled individuals, not militia.

 

Non sequiturs are still, usually considered fallacies. You are not addressing my arguments. Why not get a clue and a Cause.

 

Both cases refute your arguments.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Can you state what you believe my argument is so we can clarify?

 

No. You state what your argument is.

 

guess and your wrong, every time. I've asked him on several occasions what his Cause was, but he told me to guess, that's when he went on ignore
He'll try to keep you guessing while chasing your tail.
He really doesn't have a Cause. He just likes to be a flea.

 

I already did; it is why i know you Only have propaganda and rhetoric that doesn't cover the argument presented--a non sequitur.

 

[MENTION=47629]rahl[/MENTION] ^^ ^^ see?^^ ^^

 

So you have no argument. Got it.

 

it's like I was sayin'

 

It is in this very thread. Not really motivated to back up your claims. there are only 9 pages; i got it.

- - - Updated - - -

appealing to the masses?