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

I believe persons who keep and bear Arms should be drafted first since they already have Arms.

 

Somehow, I knew you'd say that. Still I had hoped you'd take a more rational approach than this offering.

A more rational approach would have been addressing my argument that we now enjoy a more expanded right than previously existed. I cited two Supreme Court opinions and a law signed by this President. Unfortunately what you offered was an erroneous number unencumbered by any relevant facts. http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

If this is all you can offer to support your leading question: "at what point does law become too much law?", then I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot better than this. Try basing your position on facts, not irrational fears.

 

Who say's we didn't already serve?


0bama has had to backpedal on gun control since Fast and Furious. A quick look at murder rates over the last 20 years shows that the states have been doing something right. One of those things is allowing law abiding civilians to carry guns. States have continued to remove restrictions on guns. I believe it's because of fears of what 0bama threatens to do with our gun rights. 0bama doesn't have to verbally threaten gun rights. His history, influences, and his record are a big enough threat to cause states to react. Look at the increases in gun sales since he was elected.

If guns are not the cause for this reduction in crime, then what is? What has changed?

 

considering that the first restriction ever placed on firearms was during the 1930's (machine guns) and ccw didn't exist, we have more laws enacted since then than have help true ownership. every law passed has been a restriction...how does that equal more firearm Liberty?

 

I think we could use better aqueducts and roads; if it was good for the Militia of Rome, why not the Militia of the United States.

 

This irrelevant post is sponsored by Diesel Jeans.

 

It merely requires a clue and a Cause.

 

Correlation does not equal causation, friend. There are many possible explanations for crime reduction; background checks, "three strikes" crime penalties, abortion rights, and revised police methods are just some possible reasons.

 

Patently false. We have had gun restrictions since Colonial times. http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF

I'm sorry but I've read this passage a number of times and it still doesn't make any sense.

False again. I hardly think that you would view the gun law that our President signed into law allowing guns in National Parks as a "restriction". How about the gun laws that most States have passed allowing concealed carry? Are they a "restriction" on you? I think not.

Just because a law pertains to guns does NOT automatically make it "restrictive", friend.

Once again, if you paid attention earlier, you'd note that the Supreme Court has expanded this Right for you even though you appear to be ignorant of it. You also can now conceal-carry where a few decades ago you could not.

This whole "Chicken Little" thing decrying an imagined loss of gun liberties simply does NOT exist, and no amount of foot stomping and fear-mongering will change that.

 

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...ock-virtually-all-of-washington-dcs-gun-laws/

Interesting

 

Simply defunding something is not the same as finding a better solution at lower cost; anyone can repeal as a last resort when Prohibition was "wrong" in the first place.

 

Obviously a Liberal article, written by a liberal. Nuff said......................I stopped reading after that line...............You could own a cannon up until the early 1900's.
and the article doesn't really address the colonials, but the 19th century which as a long time after the Rev War.
Blacks owned guns during the Rev War and after. It was part of their pay and Rights they had earned for fighting on the side of America.
Libs just absolutely love to play the race card every chance they get, and this article is no different.
and this:

because you dismiss that part of YOUR Bill of Rights, so it doesn't exist for others...merely because you say so.
Libs...............bah

 

Come now stjames, you mustn't move the goalposts now. That wouldn't be fair now would it? Surely you must recall that you had stated; "considering that the first restriction ever placed on firearms was during the 1930's (machine guns)". I correctly pointed out that this statement is patently false which I backed up with sourced information that you could not dispute. The fact remains that we have had various forms of gun restrictions since Colonial times. https://saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.pdf This is historical fact and you cannot dispute this; we have had gun restrictions well before 1930, therefor you erroneous statement to the contrary is, as I said; "patently false".

I find it odd that while you admittedly didn't read the article, you claim to know what it said.

Apparently you are having trouble with the written word because your response has NOTHING to do with my post. I thought my post was clear enough in that I was directly addressing your position as to an imagined loss of gun liberties. For you to assert that I am "dismiss[ing] that part of [MY] Bill of Rights", is not only utterly incorrect, but a total deviation from the topic at hand. I challenge you to show where I claimed I had my own Bill of Rights, AND where I made any dismissal of Rights in general.

I hope that you can avoid making "straw man" fallacies, and "moving the goalpost" fallacies in the future. They really aren't very compelling, really. If your argument is valid, then surely facts and reason will suffice, no?

 

dude, that piece was written by a SOFTWARE tech.....hardly a reliable or responsible source and he's no more an expert than most of the anti-gunners in this forum..... an expert my dying ass

 

How many guns has Obama taken away from American citizens?

Compare his actions to Bush in NOLA.

 

More fallacies, eh? Now you're adding the old "Shooting the Messenger" fallacy. The link you referred to was fully sourced and indexed so you could (which you obviously DIDN'T) check the veracity of the claims that were made. Since you did NOT have any problems with the sources nor their claims then I'll have to assume that you are blinded by bias and have an aversion to reason.

It's very telling that you couldn't dispute the fact that your claim about gun restrictions beginning in 1930 was patently false, nor could you rebut my challenge to you "to show where I claimed I had my own Bill of Rights, AND where I made any dismissal of Rights in general" as you had falsely accused me.

Unfortunately, as with a lot of anti-controllers and right-wingers in general, I have found that you rely too heavily on ideologies and too little on facts. I was hoping you'd be different.

 

it was a term paper, not a legitimate source for debate. A software tech is no expert with the gun control debate. His sources are also clearly biased.
In other words, I can write a piece of garbage and herald it as the Second Coming, but it doesn't make me an expert on the Second Coming, does it?

 

The terms, Militia and the People are collective and not Individual. Thus, there are no Individual rights in private property arising from our Second Article of Amendment.

 

The Bill of Rights pertains to individual rights.

 

Not the Second Amendment; the Intent and Purpose in the first clause clearly indicates it is about States' rights and their security. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause which fixes that Standard for the context of our Second Amendment.

 

C'mon now Mr_Truth. You have no problem condemning Bush for something you say he WANTS to do, but you DO have a problem with us condemning BHO for some thing HE WANTS to do? Hypocritical...much?

 

For over six years now we've repeatedly heard from right wing delusionals that President Obama is on the verge of taking all your guns.

To this date he has not taken so much as one gun unlike right wing hero Bush.


When are these right wing liars going to write the TRUTH?????????

 

LOL - GWB, one of the WORST 5 presidents in our history, constantly being held up by liberals as the gauge by which BHO should be measured. "At least BHO isn't as bad as GWB!" LOL, a shining (but debatable) accomplishment, for sure. You guys sure do set a low bar for yourselves.

So, it's perfectly OK that you demonize GWB for saying he wants to be a dictator (which he didn't even say), but it's NOT OK for me to demonize BHO for wanting to ban firearms (which he, and members of his royal posse most certainly and demonstrably DID say)? Hypocrisy, Mr_Truth?

Do you think he'd ban and confiscate guns if he could? I do.

 

Good thing that the SCOTUS disagrees with you. A well-regulated militia may be needed to protect the States from the federal government, but the individual has the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from any government.

Side note: DC has also just struck down the ban on guns outside the home.

 

Exactly! Because the founders, in their wisdom, realized that without the inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, there could be no militia. This truth is reiterated over and over and over again in the founders writings of the time. Their intent, and the meaning of the 2A is unambiguous to those who seek truth, and not agendas.