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

I agree with much of that opinion. One cannot carry a bazooka around with him/her for self defense. I do believe that a law-abiding citizen should be able to carry a pistol on his/her person no matter where they are, with a few good exceptions, such as on an aircraft.

Let's also not forget that the SCOTUS has a very delicate balance when it comes to the Second Amendment. This is why I fear another term for Obama, among other things.

 

I don’t. I have read the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller many times, and with each rereading I find more to worry about. What I find disturbing is the extraordinary length that the court went to justify extending the Second Amendment protection to encompass an individual right; but then left us hanging on the nature of that right, and, more importantly, the standard of judicial review to be accorded to that right. I am puzzled why the court did not come out and just say that an individual right to have a gun is "fundamental" subject to "strict scrutiny" instead of making some cryptic reference relegated to a footnote. (Indeed, the court seemed almost embarrassed for not providing a clear and comprehensive answer to the question.) And, I am puzzled why the court, after distinguishing its precedent in United States v. Miller, then bent over backwards to reconcile its ruling with that decision, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 against a direct challenge that it violated the Second Amendment. (My reading of this is that it leaves in place the federal laws regulating firearms.) And what about the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment? It makes me wonder what we got from this “landmark” decision. During oral argument, Mr. Dellinger argued (in response to Justice Alito’s question regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment) that it was wanted to retake state authority over the militia; to which Justice Scalia stated: “They got nothing at all, not everything they wanted. They got nothing at all.” District of Columbia v. Heller, Transcript, Oral Argument (March 18, 2008 ) After studying the court’s opinion by Justice Scalia, I am convinced that we got nothing at all as well.

 

Fair enough.

I'm a gun owner, but I don't have any assault rifles, or extended clips for my 9mm.

I'm pretty sure coming for our guns is one of the last things the left will do.

 

Welcome to the forum. Yes the attack of our rights are a bipartisan effort.
Yet lack of another choice. Leaves us to argue which side wants to take the most. Instead of insisting both parties work in the original context of the constitution. Or at least follow procedure and amend it. However that being extremely hard. They use different tricks to pretend we had just misread it before.

 

Semi automatic is in the same class. What you consider a assault weapon and someone else does is a matter of opinion. The vast majority of deaths in the US are by handguns. So as I told you before thinking your guns are safe from either side of the spectrum left or right is flawed. The authoritarians that control both parties are a threat.

 

That to me demonstrates the way are rights are removed. They pick an choose the words that agree with their goals. When by my reading it does state that the 1st an 2nd don't restrict the states. It does restrict the federal government. Yet it isn't mentioned when they pass federal law restricting our rights. The double standard is obvious.

 

I agree they leave ways for future rulings to remove what they wish. That why I say it is a bipartisan attack on our rights. Obama being a possible 2nd term president. There by preventing him from ever facing voters again. Makes him the most immediate threat. Yet Mitt Romney is no hero to our rights. So yet again it is a choice of the lesser of two evils.

 

Well, let's just pray that Obama does NOT get a chance to upset the balance of the SCOTUS.

 

Don't get too comfortable.

 

Your polarization only demonstrates how they play us against each other. The left or the right neither side is completely wrong. What makes either side wrong is when they become authoritarian as opposed to libertarian( not the party) spectrum. As a demonstration to not vilify rift or left. Adolph Hiltler was a moderate on the left VS right spectrum. The evil came from where he fit in on the authoritarian VS libertarian spectrum. The very top of the authoritarian side.

 

But nobody has proposed taking away my weapons.

Even if they did, they don't have the manpower to go from house to house collecting guns.

If someone starts talking about it, I'll organize and protest, and the consitution is on my side.

I'm not saying you're paranoid...but I can't see any reason for me to think they'll come for my guns.

 

While I agree with you on most 2nd amendment issues. I see that you like most of us do support safety measures to prevent abuse of firearms. Yet like most of us worry that the government will abuse this ability.

I offer an opinion not meant to offend or pretend I know everything.
Just a word of advise to a fellow supporter of the constitution.
That while prevention of a 2nd term by the current administration.
Is the most immediate concern. This action while putting some concerns we have off for a few years. Does not solve the problems we are concerned about.
We will know more after tonight ( it being super tuesday) as to who the option will be. If it is Mitt Romney based on his past; he as well shouldn't have a 2nd
term. Any of the others and our chances for this election appear to be weakened.

This election much to my and your dismay. Won't be decided on this issue in which we have been discussing. If it is as I fear the whole election will come down to a supreme court decision. Which that decision leaves us in a catch-22.
The republican best chance of winning the election rest with the ACA being ruled constutional. Causing the indepents who actually decide the election. To vote republican. So as to not waste even more space on off-topic opinions. I will summarize. If the court rules the way I suggested above. To me that would represent that your quote I responded to is already happened. That the republicans are legislating from the bench as well. If I'm wrong an they rule unconstitutional. Then 4 more years of Obama is almost a sure thing. I hope I'm over analyzing both options.

 

I don't think they will come for yours are mine. Just set the stage for future generations. To not obtain them or be entitled to the rights you enjoy.

I won't mind if you say I'm paranoid lol. I explore all possible options.
I welcome other opinions. I think that by the history of our leader lying to us. Force you to explore paranoid thoughts. Hope they are just that but to trust or leaders blindly. That would be naive. (I'm not referring to you )

 

No, first he claimed that he was going to reinstate the Asult weapons ban then his AG, Holder, said the same thing.

 

Funny, they seemed to have the manpower in New Orleans

And forming a protest after your weapons are gone??? What good will that do??

 

Didn't stop the lefties in New Orleans

 

And again, how does the so called "Assult weapons" differ from any self loader such as your 9mm??? You squeeze the trigger once and the weapon fires once. Then...., you have to release the trigger and squeeze it again before it will fire again. Oh, extended clips?? I can have any gun smith make a 30 shot clip for ANY semi that is clip feed from the bottom. So, once more, what's the difference???

 

He used the term assault rifle, meaning an automatic weapon.

lol

People who use such terminology usually don't have a clue.

 

What did I say that lead you to believe I think there is a difference?

 

Wasn't martial law declared there or something?

Either way, I don't care.

Nobody is coming for my guns.

 

I may not be all "whisky tango foxtrot"...but I know how to load up my 30-30 and shoot people trying to kill me.

 

I'm going to leave the question of 2nd amendment rights up to future generations.

If for some reason the majority of the Americans at that time want to repeal the 2nd, and outlaw guns, I won't care, because I'll be dead.

 

I as I said before I do not think they wil do that anytime soon. We are still too strong. Yet the more they divide us as gun owners. The weaker we become. To have us believe our guns are ok but that other guys guns arent good for nothing but evil. I currently do not own assault weapons or high caliber handguns. I hope to in the near future just in case. If you will research you will see other than looking real intimidating. Such a small % of violence is caused by assault weapons. If you don't stand up for the other people who own legal firearms. Who will have you back if you are wrong.

 

I don't wish to change who you vote for. That is a choice each must decide ones self. I would like to change your view on the above statement.
If our ancestors had felt that way do you think there would be a choice for you to make. Are a 30-30 to defend yourself with. That is my favorite rifle as well.

 

I think that crime will have to increase exponentially for anyone to take a measure as drastic as repealing the 2nd amendment, and I can't see anyone just deciding guns should be outlawed, just to outlaw them. Anti 2nd amendment people always cite public safety as thier reasoning.

The problem I have is with 94% of gun owners. Statistics show that the majority of people who own guns for self protection get scared and fail to discharge thier weapons when they need to defend themselves with them.

I also worry about cops, because if the few civilians brave enough, start breaking out guns to stop criminals, when the cops show up, how are they going to know who to shoot?

I just think there are a lot of big talkers in the NRA, who probably don't have the stones to use thier guns.