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

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by onalandline, Jan 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nemo

    Nemo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your right to have a gun, as all rights, exists only by law.
     
  2. Nemo

    Nemo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. See The Federalist Papers, No. 46 (James Madison, Jan. 29, 1788 ). However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve. (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard Units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)
     
  3. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As I said if the quote were true. Would you be suggesting that it is accurate.
    I will state my opinion on the most offensive aspects. The most offensive by far is the banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons. That is unprecedented and unacceptable. That would effectively mean I couldn't leave my shotguns to my son when I died. The same would apply to all self-loading hand guns. As well as rifles. I'm surprised given the skills you have shown in debating you would even responded to this with out selectively editing that out. That is a no go an if even attempted you will see a very real response.

    Allowing lawsuits against the firearm industry as was discussed. For the misuse of there products. Not the malfunction not from negligence. Would be the same as allowing lawsuits against GM or Ford for drunk driving or reckless drivers. It would raise the price on firearms and ammo. They would be unaffordable to anyone except the elite. Yet another case where you have demonstrated to much intelligence to not know the ramifications. Dumping firearms in the inner-city. Why not just cut the political correct speak and say quit allowing minorities to buy firearms. Your calling the above minor, simple, and constitutional. Did more to prove this thread accurate than I or anyone else ever could. I had printed that almost in jest because I considered that so extreme that it had to be the hopes of an extreme anti-gun zealot. Your support of that just makes me question both you and the one you defend.
     
  4. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Too bad this is probably not what they had in mind.
     
  5. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I do agree with the mixed bag point. I just don't see any mix in the bag. When it comes to justices that have been apointed by democrats. It to me appears that the judges on both sides support their respective parties. More than they value the constitution. I believe the NRA is trying to use the argument that all citizens are a part of the militia. There is precedent that all men between 17-45 our members. Yet given anti-discimnation requirements. You could argue age or gender restriction wouldnt be enforceable. So in effect all Americans could be members of the militia. That is there stance as I see it. I will admit the republican position on this issue is less than clear. The establishment choice of the last two republican presidential candidate. Is ominous Mcain and Romney are the most obvious anti-gun members of the Party. Since Bloomberg left the party. Yet all that said a 2nd term president is immune from future repercussion from voters. So in my mind that makes him more of a threat.
     
  6. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Back when the constitution was written, militias had muskets, swords, horses, and cannons. And that was what was neccessary for a militia to be effective in putting down hostile invaders or an oppressive government that turned on the American people.

    Today...in order to accomplish the same thing, militias would need to have artillary, grenades, heavy automatic weaponry, air capabilities, lots of armour, and so on.

    You MUST define "well armed" in order to establish what citizens in militias are allowed to possess. Militia members just can't say "the founders meant whatever guns I have"
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The Militia of the United States may be called upon to suppress insurrections or repel invaders, with those weapons appropriate to that task.
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not sure how you reached your conclusion.

    From my understanding, the Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia, from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control as prescribed by our federal Congress.

    In the case of the State of California, the military is subordinate to the civilian power; it would depend on the governor as commander in chief of a State militia.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It may be due to gun lovers not loving their republic enough.
     
  10. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thank you for the clarification. I have to say though compared to some of the other issues. As I refered to a brief summary above. That seems trivial in my opinion. You yourself talked about federal government being able to regulate the states. During our disussion of the long gun reporting requirements in border state. So your stance is that it is ok to regulate some states. If it
    agrees with your beliefs. Yet it is a travesty to deregulate other restrictions
    that you happen to like. To me that seems hypocritical it has to be one way are another. The states or not the only one being deprived of rights. Why may I ask would protecting state rights matter. If the only protection is for rules more restrictive. I could possible see your point if for example like the US VS cruikshank the federal government power was restricted yet the states were not. However I don't think that is the position you seem to support. It seems you want that federal can regulate and the states can add more regulation. It would appear that you think the constitution only protects the states. Not the people your position is confusing on this issue.
     
  11. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The requirement was to have weapons suitable for infantry service.
    As well as ammunition. All militia men didn't have horses. I don't think they had cannons. Officers were the main carriers of swords.

    That is why I argue against assault weapons bans. While they aren't military grade they are as close as we can get. They would met the militia requirement. The civl,state ,or federal government would have to supply the more advanced equipment you describe. As well as training to use it. That is where the large standing military comes in. Now if you a hinting at the fact we were supposed to counter balance the standing military. As well as defend the constitution from tyranny. I believe it was Madison that described a 25-1 militia to military ratio. We would be far surpass that ratio if all eligible would respond. That wouldn't be the case I'm fairly certain. Our military is around a million strong. To truly defend against tyranny we would have to hope a large portion if not all obeyed their oath to defend the constitution. That is doubtful based on it being very disciplined. Honestly in that instance being slightly better armed than the opposition in Syria. Would be about the best case scenario.
     
  12. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That could be true. In the event the state called the militia up. Yet it is more difficult than that. Congress can call the militia up as well. The points Nemo makes regarding the national guard is valid as well as it is supposed to be the organized militia yet it basically functions as a branch of the US military. The unorganized militia is everyone else.
     
  13. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have debated that statement with you before. If you changed it to Americans not loving their republic enough. I would be less opposed to the statement.
     
  14. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have debated that statement with you before. If you changed it to Americans not loving their republic enough. I would be less opposed to the statement.
     
  15. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not all of the framers were vague about what constituted a well armed militia. I could dig up the letters, but I'll just run past you what I remember.

    As I recollect, there was series of letters written between one or more of the framers, and some town leader on the Tennessee frontier, and they were specific about needing cannons, and the idea to store them in a central facility. They were also specific about the definition of "arms would include horses, and how this town was too cash strapped to pay for horses, and so on. The agreed purpose was to repel armed invasion.

    I don't think there should be a ban on any non explosive weapon that can be carried by one person. And I never cease to be amazed at the reluctance of my fellow 2nd amendment rights supporters to define exactly which "arms" are covered by the 2nd. If we don't define it, they can more easilly take it away.
     
  16. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It seems like these militias exploded as soon as Obama took office, and they didn't as much under Clinton.

    The NRA and militias are almost completely made up of Republicans, or paranoid conspiracy independent types.

    I do not see the Obama adminstration seeking to regulate fire arms at the federal level. The feds might interlope reg city or state regulation, but the NRA has absolutely no problem with the SCOTUS overturning city or state ordinances. I thought that the feds should stay out of state matters.
     
  17. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    When the best someone can muster is "we'll see", then they have conceded the argument. Perhaps next time you will apply some critical thinking to your position before posting it.
     
  18. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    An amazing fabrication, friend.

    I'm afraid you have a very self-serving definition of what constitutes a gun registry. You should know that only a small portion of the gun sales will be reported to the ATF. The reporting is restricted to the unique combination of certain types of long guns, amounts purchased and if they are purchased within a five day period. Hardly a gun registry by any stretch.




    No it doesn't. The long gun restriction is a new directive by the Justice Dept. Why would the Justice Dept enact a new directive that covers something that already (according to you) exists? I asked you for the clause in the NICS that addresses multiple gun sales. You had claimed (I don't know why I have to constantly remind you of what you have already said here) that the NICS "would have prevented most of the sales that the BATFE forced gun retailers to make". Having reviewed the law, I can see no such multiple sale restriction, so please enlighten me on the clause where it can be found.

    As far as I can tell, the reporting of multiple gun purchases by dealers has been a completely voluntary one, and NOT a mandated one (unless that particular State mandates it).









    Once again, you think that you can play both sides of this issue. You really should try to be more consistent.

    You claim to be for existing gun regulations but against any new ones. Your reasoning being that new laws only affect the law-abiding (an odd observation that I have previously addressed here many times) and that new gun laws would not positively affect crime. Apparently you believe that existing gun laws are both effective and necessary, otherwise you'd be supporting something at the expense of the very parameters you claimed to hold so dear. Namely that a gun law should be shown to be both effective (against crime) and necessary. These are YOUR parameters, friend, not mine.

    Your position only further heightens the fact that your views on new gun laws are exclusively dependent on your zealotry and not logical reason.
     
  19. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    There. You have just made my point FOR me. You're proposing to "preemptively" reject ANY new gun law regardless of what it is, what it addresses, or what the Constitutional ramifications of its enactment would be, simply out of hand. Without, by the way, even looking at its merits. An Authoritarian model if ever there was one.

    I outlined four different methods (there are others) to effect the outcome of any proposed piece of legislation, BEFORE it is voted on. For you to imply that I am recommending you lay down and not use your Constitutional right of expression and redress until AFTER it becomes law is the epitome of a straw man fallacy.

    Your attempt to use an appeal to fear fallacy is also shady at best. When you use the legal tools available to you as any citizen DURING the process of legislation, AND if in spite of this diligence a particular new law even manages to get through (highly unlikely) there are the courts to decide if the law is Constitutional or not. Your fears are so overblown, it's not even funny.
     
  20. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well I'm not familiar with the case you mentioned. Attacks by Native American were common place. As well as trying to establish a defense against other potential threats. If states wanted to they could assemble heavier weapons. City's could if the State allowed it. I agree we should be able to own any weapon. With the exeptions of unusual and extremely dangerous weapons. Yet my problems come with even the conservative judges opinions. Even In our victories which are very small. One if the most conservative Justice Scallia wrote that the right wasn't absolute. He said the government could ban dangerous or unusual weapons. What weapon does that protect against future rulings. He could have said as I did above "extremely dangerous or unusual." what weapon could a future decision be on dangerous weapons. In my mind any weapon is dangerous so it was a very hollow victory. Yet the liberal justices are even worse they said. The said in the dissenting opinion on heller vs DC that the 2nd "does not protect the individual right to bear arms." According to them it only protects states militia. Yet they use that to refer to national guard. They really said it does not protect the right to use weapons for self-defense or hunting or shooting sports. The only protection they say it provides protection for is states to have a military. You can research Heller VS DC. Read the dissenting opinion see who appointed those who made the disentting decision. So I agree with you but I don't think any one on the court does.
     
  21. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    What an odd question. He wasn't even expressing a desire to do that.

    Are you even aware that Heller guaranteed this as an individual right?
     
  22. Nemo

    Nemo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not a big campaign issue. (Non of the candidates have even mentioned it.)
     
  23. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "Under the Radar" slipped by you
     
  24. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    No. I did not suggest anything as to its veracity. I was questioning how his truly stated positions could be construed as a "war on the Second Amendment". The quote you used is actually inaccurate.



    This is untrue and not valid.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/obamas-gun-ban/

    You're getting exited about nothing.





    You assume too much.





    A far better use of intelligence might be understanding what one is railing about. Do you even know what you are against here? You have made many assumptions based upon an original assumption that your source is actually factual.

    Any lawsuit that asks a company for compensation due to the misuse of their guns stands as good a chance of victory as the car manufacturer you described above. You are very quick to buy into any fearful propaganda piece apparently. The plaintiff would need to show a willful or knowing wrong that the manufacturer partook in that might allow the fatality or injury to occur. This would be no different than any other industry lawsuit.

    Don't worry though. The NRA saw to it that this industry is uniquely and exclusively protected now from virtually any lawsuits. The ONLY American industry so entitled, by the way, to my knowledge.




    Once again you make assumptions with no factual basis to substantiate them.

    It's a shame when someone will take baseless and fearful rhetoric at face value while going to great lengths to argue against it as you have here. You started out by questioning the validity of the quotes, only to later fully defending them. Pity.





    Ha! And all this is based on what? A vague and fearful quote that you posted? The one that you assume to be true without question, yet now choose to question MY position.

    I suspect that you're asking the wrong questions, friend. They've come much too late.
     
  25. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Dan ct Did you have a Bar or Bat Mitzva ?:wtf:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page