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

Negative. They are as I say. Move on.

 

I am not sure why you have the beliefs you do:

In my opinion, we would not have the gun issues we currently do, if gun lovers were more willing to become more necessary to the security of a free State.

 

I believe I have made more attempt at understanding our Founding Fathers than most gun lovers, and I don't even own a gun.

 

I still do not understand where that theory comes from. The military is mostly "gun lovers". Most other gun owners such as myself do love this republic. It is not perfect but it is by far the best in the world. Can you give an example of this non love we supposedly have. I dont mean the same line you keep repeating. I want an actual example of why you make that statement.

 

Gun lovers who are in the professional military must love their republic at least as much as their guns, simply because they muster more often.

 

I find it hard to believe that is the case the statements of the founding fathers do not support what you have said.
Now while I don't personal think anyone should be forced to own a gun. The militia clause in the constitution by the original framers intent required a citizen to not only have weapons but to use them in defense of this country. Now most of the people on this thread do own weapons. We disagree on the issue of the thread. You are in the minority of the posters here by not owning a weapon. Now I would not make the statement you didn't love your country by not owning a gun. Unless you have a religious belief that prevented you using a weapon to defend your country some of the founding fathers would not have been so kind. There are other ways to help defend your country. So I do not think the fact you don't participate. In the militia the constitution set up makes you unpatriotic. I don't see why you keep repeating a Milita clause as a reason for a lack of love in the republic. When you your self do not fulfill your obligation to the clause.

 

So are you saying that because we do not assemble as a militia. That makes us not love our country. If so I would state that we haven't been called by congress to do so. Also most states have laws preventing the training or parading by members of unorganized militia.

 

I am assuming you are using muster = assemble. That word has varied meanings an not commonly used today.

 

First, it's an AK-47, not 37. It's an AR-15, not 14. Hummmmm, wonder how well you even know firearms? So, please tell me, is either your 30-06 or .308 a self loader(Gold, that means a semi automatic)?? How about you 9 MM?? If so, please tell me what the difference is between the way it/they operate than a AK-47 or an AR-15??? You see, Gold, a semi is a semi is a semi, they all operate the same way. An AK-47, Mac 90, or SKS that you or I would buy are ALL semi autos. And, Gold, the 7.62X39 is a .30 cal, just like you 30-30, 30-06, or .308!! It leaves the end of the barrel at 2,425 feet a second which is 200 feet per second faster than your 30-30 and 200 feet a second slower than your .308. So tell me, what's the BIG DEAL about an AK-47 and why should they be banned?

 

Here are some of Mr. Obama's views on gun control.
http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

 

Friend, have you ever taken a close look at the Oregon equal force law?? Oh yes, you can not use anything more than the intruder is using. The law says you can only use equal force to that used against you to defend yourself.. but should you let yourself get beat with a stick because all you have is a gun?

Homeowner, "Mr. Burgler, have you got a knife, gun, or club?? I have to find out because I'm a good law abiding citizen".

Burgler, "None of them I'm 6'4' and weigh 235 pounds and I'm empty handed".

Homeowner, "Wait a minute, I'm 5' 8' and weigh 154 pounds".

Burgler, "Isn't that your tuff luck, .... oh, by the way", ...Bang (the burgler's gun goes off), "I also lie".

And you think the government is on your side??

 

Hey Gold;

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/holder-tells-congress-the-obama-administration-wants-to-ban-guns/

Holder tells Congress the Obama administration wants to ban guns

It would seem that Obama's aim hasn't change since he took office.

 

That is against my view of the 2nd. I would suspect most other gun owners would agree. Not that expect the partisan supporters of Obama to agree.
Since it is all about the party first. Facts are only allowed if they further the parties platform.

 

Wol, are you that ignorant about firearms??? You really are?? O.K., a little education for you. The M-16, one of the biggest pieces of junk in my mind that the U.S. military ever armed it's troops with is a glorified .22. That's right, a .22. 5.56 MM is a .22. It shoots a 50 grain slug between 3200 to 3600 feet per second and if it hits a blade of grass let alone a leaf or twig it's off into the wild blue yonder. That's right, it ricochets. And people wonder why we lost so many soldiers in Vietnam, that stupid little hopped up bullet wouldn't penetrate the jungle.

Next, a .308 WILL carry on to the target, so will a 30-06. A 7MM is good for 1000 yard shots. The you get into the .300 mags, .338's, .340's and on up. The .270 is also a flat shooting little number. And Wol, I would rather have put one through the head or heart than have 20 in the air.

 

And how did the Founding Fathers view a "Well regulated militia"??

No, the National Guard is NOT that "Well regulated militia", if you would bother to continue reading the Second Amendment you would see that it's the PEOPLE that are the "Well regulated militia", ..." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". The National guard are NOT "the people".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home.

Any ferther question on this subject???

 

Fiend, you have over 36,000,000 of us veterans out here in the private sector. And most of us own guns.

 

Simple contrariety? That's all you can muster?

Look. You CLAIMED that they (Kagan and Sotamayor) were both "anti-gun" AND "anti-Second Amendment", however you haven't been able to show any justification for this position other than your zealotry and bias.

I'm afraid you're setting the bar very low.

 

Actually, I believe in our Ninth Amendment and in not having to be as well Regulated as persons who do keep and bear Arms.

 

In my opinion, we have a Second Amendment for a reason; preventing a militia from becoming well regulated should no longer be considered a States' right, since the ratification of our federal Constitution. Because, a well Regulated militia is specifically exempted from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws) as prescribed by our federal Congress.

 

Since when has the term 'muster' lost its meaning in any military?

 

While I can understand and somewhat sympathize with the plight of gun lovers; a well regulated Militia of the People who keep and bear Arms is what is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State and exempted from State gun control laws for that reason.

There is no reason why due process could not be better served by a militia of the United States, who may simply declare to any potential disturber of the domestic Tranquility of a free State, that they are willing to deny and disparage the use of Arms, to anyone who may be infringing on that State's right and potentially, with Arms that may be used to suppress insurrections and repel invasions if necessary.

 

From my perspective, that seems to be a fallacy of false Cause, since it was more about rights to private property that may include Arms, than it was about a well regulated militia of the United States, being infringed upon.

 

Would I be any less of a fiend, if our Founding Fathers had specifically enumerated that any anarchy or mob of the People should not be infringed upon, instead of a well Regulated militia (of the United States)?

 

You keep forgetting about the individual right. You should tell that to some states I agree but they try to slowly remove all rights that challenge their power. That is what leaders do on both sides. They each just have different starting points.

 

The government basically does as it wishes. If it tramples on one right it will also do the same to the next one that stands in its way. That why I like the second amendment it in theory protects all others. Yet the government is very effective at the "Divide an Conquer" strategy. They keep 1/3 of the population mad about this. Another 1/3 mad about that. The other 1/3 wondering what everyone else is fighting about. While the other 1% sit back laugh and make laws for our own good supposedly. We are all the sheep being led to slaughter. Yet we can't come together to prevent it.