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

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. DC v. Heller does that with the first clause.

 

only in your opinionated mind..............funny how that delusion works

 

Projecting much. Can you cite what the Judicature claimed was the Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment?

 

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I posted TWO links and the one you claimed to be a term paper is NOTHING of the sort. You had decided to shoot the messenger (a fallacy, by the way) on the link I first posted so I posted another link that included multiple references that would satisfy any unbiased academic, or even an impartial and curious individual, neither of which you appear to be. This author posted some 165 sources for his paper and you simply smeared the whole lot as "clearly biased"? Really? You mean sources such as "Code of 1650" (an actual law), and "Public Records of Connecticut" are biased. Really? How about "The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619",and "the Compact with the Charter and Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth" are you seriously saying that these are all "biased"? Your argument is absolutely laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.

You can use all the fallacies you wish to avoid the truth, but your argument that "the first restriction ever placed on firearms was during the 1930's (machine guns)" is (still is....) patently and demonstrably false. I suggest you shed your unfounded fears of "slippery slope" because it's really not helping your argument. Ahhhh, if you wish to have a rational and cogent argument, that is.

 

so fixated are you that you failed to mention local ordinances. That's where the first gun control came from. But it sure wasn't referred to as "gun control"
Just like the two terms, "gun crime" and "gun control" didn't come into existence before the late 60's and early 70's
so it wasn't called gun control in 1800

 

2 Supreme Court decisions rejected that argument.

- - - Updated - - -

2 Supreme Court rulings rejected this argument.

 

That the individual has a right to arms totally unconnected with any militia.

 

Forget the 2nd amendment. Justify gun ownership. I'll accept, for the sake of argument, that the Constitution awards the right to carry weapons. Now, answer the question of whether civilization is or is not better for this right. I would argue, no. If we could, by some magic, make the invention of guns disappear, humanity would be better off. Agree or disagree?

 

You need to cite the actual opinion that claims that or you are just appealing to ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Why not pay attention to the actual argument.

 

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

In my case, it is merely about our representatives to government wasting the Peoples' tax monies on frivolity.

 

It's hard to tell. If you look at medieval times, they weren't good times for the poor. Have you ever toured a museum of medieval torture devices? They don't talk of rampant crime, but we do hear of lots of brutality and human rights abuses. The king even demanded that the church answer to him at times. There was still war amongst neighboring tribes and kingdoms. I'm sure there was still robbery and murder. Was it more or less violent? I don't know.

Our ingenuity and the industrial revolution also separate us from those times, but there is almost no law enforcement without firearms. With firearms, law enforcement has ran over the rights of the people at times. There is no way to predict what would happen if the gun had never been invented.

There is no way to put that genie back in the bottle. Even if we gave up our guns, some criminals and/or the government would make guns. I don't trust criminals and I don't trust an unchecked government. The only people I trust is myself and my friends and family who have earned my trust.(besides God)

 

Why are you so against the individual right?

- - - Updated - - -

Guns would just be replaced with other tools.

 

After all this time, you still don't have a clue or a Cause; i got it. Rights in private property which include the class called Arms are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, Acquire and Posses.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. DC v. Heller does that with the first clause.

If the People can't do it then neither can the Judicature.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

- - - Updated - - -

2 Supreme Court decisions rejected your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

2 supreme court rulings(hellar and McDonald)rejected your argument

 

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Why not pay attention to the actual arguments instead of just trolling with your irrelevant propaganda and rhetoric.

 

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

 

''GWB, one of the WORST 5 presidents in our history''



Right wing delusionals now call Bush a 'liberal'???


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



True he was the worst president ever but to compare Obama with him is down right laughable and pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

OK. I'll ask again:

HOW MANY GUNS HAS OBAMA TAKEN FROM YOU????

 

You must not have any clue or any Cause since you only seem to have non sequiturs. None of those cases even consider my arguments and they never came up. You are welcome to cite the decisions to prove your point whenever you can find the relevant discussion in any ruling.

 

Bush was a moderate lesser of two evils. Look who he ran against both times.

0bama doesn't have the support to ban guns and he knows it. If I were to move to New York, California, or Maryland, I'd have almost all of my guns confiscated.

 

It was YOU that was comparing BHO to GWB, not I. Talk about delusional.

Exactly 0. No one will take my guns, ever.

And now: I'll ask again:

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?

 

But it sure as hell wouldn't be Obama who would take any guns from you or anyone else unlike right wing Bush who is so loved by the right wing delusionals.



-------------

Obama has made no effort to take away guns unlike your hero traitor Bush.


And that's the TRUTH as you deluded pundits well know.

 

you do realize Bush is no longer in office. Typical Lib socialist..................can't recall history accurately
What makes you think that? Obama doesn't want your guns is a lie.
ANY legislation that reduces the 2nd A is unconstitutional, even from him.
Don't forget, Pelosi and Feinstein are his means to an end and they want everybody's guns except for theirs taken away for Americans. I wonder why that is.
First lie of a Lib, I don't want your money...(btw, pay for my insurance because I'm a cheap ass lazy person)
Second lie...we don't want your guns, you can keep a single shot rifle or shotgun, but you must give up the rest.....(Most of us gun owners know why you want our guns, so you can steal everything else without fear)

 

Typical fascist lies.

How many guns has Obama taken?



ZERO

 

My right to own a gun, is the same as my right to own a car, a house, etc. Do you even own a gun?

 

Let's be reasonable, here, and look at the facts as they are available.

Has Obama ever made any effort to, or at all many any allusion to intent towards, deprive americans of their right to bear arms?

Let's just start with that. Does there exist any such incidence?