Obame re: guns" "I am constrained by a system that the Founders put in place"

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd amendment was to fend off redcoats and indians. There's no need today for a well armed militia... today.

Well, even if true, and as I said before, that is a reason to repeal the 2nd Amend ... it is not a reason to ignore the 2nd Amend

Here is all you have to do... first convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose a Constitutional Amendment to the states repealing the 2nd Amend.. Once you have done that, you need only convince 38 states to ratify the proposed amendment and your job is done. Quite simple really and layed out in full in Article V of the Constitution.

I understand the the US Senate may have some extra time on their hands as they could not round up even 40 senators to support an Assault Weapons Ban. You should contact Harry Reid right away, as I am sure Harry is anxious for the Democratic Party to come out in support of the repeal of the 2nd Amend .

GOOD LUCK!!!

It also says in the constitution that we're one nation under god, and even dumber proposition than the 2nd amendment.

You must be looking at a different version of the Constitution than I am. Perhaps your version explains how a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional because that is not in my version either? Does your version of the Constitution also say it is "indivisable with liberty and justice for all"?

Like I said, we're a nation of retards, we can't even ban assault weapons.

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

Peope like you are why the anti-gun side is losing the debate.
Keep up the good work.

 

[boedicca]

ima's screen name is short for imamoron.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If SCOTUS weren't a huge sack of windfarts, they'd strike down the 2nd amendment as being unconstitutional.
And if the US wasn't full of morons, we could get the 2nd amendment repealed anyways.
Waddaya gonna do?

the 2nd Amendment may have been forged with people like you in mind....just sayin....

The 2nd amendment was to fend off redcoats and indians. There's no need today for a well armed militia... today. Like I said, if the US wasn't full of retards, we could get the 2nd amendment erased and start to regulate guns, like a sane country would.
It also says in the constitution that we're one nation under god, and even dumber proposition than the 2nd amendment.

and what regulations are you calling for?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The 2nd amendment was to fend off redcoats and indians. There's no need today for a well armed militia... today.

Well, even if true, and as I said before, that is a reason to repeal the 2nd Amend ... it is not a reason to ignore the 2nd Amend

Here is all you have to do... first convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose a Constitutional Amendment to the states repealing the 2nd Amend.. Once you have done that, you need only convince 38 states to ratify the proposed amendment and your job is done. Quite simple really and layed out in full in Article V of the Constitution.

I understand the the US Senate may have some extra time on their hands as they could not round up even 40 senators to support an Assault Weapons Ban. You should contact Harry Reid right away, as I am sure Harry is anxious for the Democratic Party to come out in support of the repeal of the 2nd Amend .

GOOD LUCK!!!

It also says in the constitution that we're one nation under god, and even dumber proposition than the 2nd amendment.

You must be looking at a different version of the Constitution than I am. Perhaps your version explains how a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional because that is not in my version either? Does your version of the Constitution also say it is "indivisable with liberty and justice for all"?

Like I said, we're a nation of retards, we can't even ban assault weapons.

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

so by repealing the 2nd.....the gun threat disappears?....

 

[legaleagle_45]

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

Remarkable legal reasoning. Never in the history of the entire universe has such an argument been advanced... which can only mean one of two things:

1.) You are the foremost legal scholar this world has ever seen, far surpassing any former or current member of SCOTUS including but not limited to Marshall, Brandeis, Holmes and Cardozo; or,

2.) You are a loon.

I choose option 2.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

According to Obama, in the exact same speech, tyranny is NOT possible in the United States. lolololol

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The 2nd amendment was to fend off redcoats and indians. There's no need today for a well armed militia... today. Like I said, if the US wasn't full of retards, we could get the 2nd amendment erased and start to regulate guns, like a sane country would.
It also says in the constitution that we're one nation under god, and even dumber proposition than the 2nd amendment.

Was the 3rd Amendment meant to fend off Redcoats?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I don't think any foreign Soldier could give a damn about an of our Amendments.

You should read Federalist 28, by Alexander Hamilton:

Federalist 28 - If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Has it ever occurred to morons like you that the even many of the people who ratified the US Constitution admitted the Constitution is a flawed document?

The Southern states used the Constitution to keep the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people to own and trade in Slavery?

It has occured that you are a moron, so you dont like the Constitution? I know the answer, just want to hear you say it.

And for slavery you do realize the 5/8 clause that you blame on the south is because of the north? do you know why? The south would gladly have counted each slave as a person, but the noth thought it would give them too much power and didnt want to do that...I bet you didnt hear that in you gayloving school, did ya?

too weird

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The point is regulation of guns and ammo have existed. Once people cede authority has the right to regulate, the door is open. That is the point. Of course one can attempt to argue the direction of the regulation like you have, but...

The door has been open since the earliest days of Colonial America.

Incorrect Dante... you are confusing a duty with a right. That one has a right to arms does not negate a duty to arms or vice versa They exist simultaneously, and in fact are two sides of the same coin.... they grew up together, which is an interesting story if you are a history nerd and want to take a trip back in time to the mid 800's AD and hear stories of Viking raids and Alfred the Great. Consider that there are two ways to obtain compliance with a governmental goal... a carrot and a stick... a benefit and a sanction. Governmenal mandates are the stick, the right to arms for personal purposes is the carrot... and the goal is a populace which is well armed and familiar with the use of arms.

That the government can mandate that you have certain arms for public purposes does not lessen the right to have arms for personal purposes. Your argument is similar to asserting that the right to property does not exist since the government has the power of taxation.

"That the government can mandate that you have certain arms for public purposes does not lessen the right to have arms for personal purposes." - huh? where did you get that form? and as far as a duty and a right...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante if you are a person who has no reason to be barred from owning a gun but don't have any bullets because they are now banned.....what good is the gun?.....have your rights to own that gun now been infringed?......without bullets what good is that gun?....

Depends on what the ban is. Home making of ammo? Armor piercing ammo? An outright ban on all ammo ownership or production, or sale, or resale or trade has never been seriously proposed. Why the straw man all the time form some people?

banning bullets has been talked about,there is a thread here on it somewhere with quotes from different people in government......one of our own Assembly people from up north somewhere was quoted as saying he was thinking of introducing a bill here to make ammo REAL expensive by taxing the fuck out of it....and the poster who i was responding too said just ban it......she did not break it down like you did.....she just said bullets.....

People can propose all kinds of crazy things. They are usually not taken seriously except in times of strife and anxiety/fear. Nationally, I doubt there is support for something that nuts, but then again when you have the NRA pissing everybody off with crazy things they say...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

* * * *


then on page 2, post #28, Dante posted a link to a Wikipedia page with actual quotes
.................... where did Dante lie about or even discuss the 3/5ths?
* * * *

Actually, Dainty, you brainless dildo, you brought it up AGAIN here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7045539-post87.html

I replied to that since YOU had ignorantly, stupidly and erroneously suggested that I was mistaken about the 3/5ths compromise.

I wasn't, of course.

It was indeed a compromise (about slaves and the COUNTING of slaves as part of the enumeration). And it was intended (not by the Southern contingent, of course, you dishonest twat) as a stop gap measure to help allow for the creation of the Constitution whilst laying some groundwork for the possible future eradication of slavery.

Always happy to correct your numerous errors and misrepresentations and deflection efforts, you pitiable twit.

you CAN'T link to and quote anything like that because it never happened.

Iliar cannot quote a post where Dante had a back and forth on the 3/5ths like he 'splains it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

"That the government can mandate that you have certain arms for public purposes does not lessen the right to have arms for personal purposes." - huh? where did you get that form? and as far as a duty and a right...

From here:

Once people cede authority has the right to regulate, the door is open. That is the point. Of course one can attempt to argue the direction of the regulation like you have, but...

The door has been open since the earliest days of Colonial America.

Which was in response to my explanation that early colonial regulations mandated ownership of arms and did not restrict them.

Which I would hope would have made you curious as to how the right to arms developed. Unlike other pro gun posters I am rather unique in asserting that the the 2nd Amend is not (just ) about duck hunting... because I think hunting is part of it... and was always part of it.

If you wish to assert that the 2nd is not absolute and that it is subject to limitiations just like any other right... I would agree, but be quick to point out that those limitations must be justified to the same degree that one requires justification for limitations on every other right.

In short Dante, my job will be done when the 2nd amend is given as much respect and treated similarly to other portions of the Bill of Rights rather as some long forgotten relative that you find embarrasing having around.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"That the government can mandate that you have certain arms for public purposes does not lessen the right to have arms for personal purposes." - huh? where did you get that form? and as far as a duty and a right...

From here:

Once people cede authority has the right to regulate, the door is open. That is the point. Of course one can attempt to argue the direction of the regulation like you have, but...

The door has been open since the earliest days of Colonial America.

Which was in response to my explanation that early colonial regulations mandated ownership of arms and did not restrict them.

Which I would hope would have made you curious as to how the right to arms developed. Unlike other pro gun posters I am rather unique in asserting that the the 2nd Amend is not (just ) about duck hunting... because I think hunting is part of it... and was always part of it.

If you wish to assert that the 2nd is not absolute and that it is subject to limitiations just like any other right... I would agree, but be quick to point out that those limitations must be justified to the same degree that one requires justification for limitations on every other right.

In short Dante, my job will be done when the 2nd amend is given as much respect and treated similarly to other portions of the Bill of Rights rather as some long forgotten relative that you find embarrasing having around.

The 2nd amendment has gotten more respect than you acknowledge, if you are to judge by actions and not words/arguments.

But I never mentioned Colonial arms regulations being about restricting arms, though I think that was the case in a few instances. The point is when you recognize an Authority's right to regulate the door is open to where the regulation can go unless restrictions on that authority are spelled out..as with the 2nd.

The reason the 2nd mentions 'shall not be abridged' ...

What I have been doing for a long time is trying to get people to admit that there is a tradition of guns in the Americas being subject to regulation. People just assume where I am going with it. I really love baiting people and watching them jump to conclusions. Why? It is a way to sift through the shit and find people who truly listen and engage, rather than have to deal with people who aren't half as smart as they think they are.



you sir have been granted a dispensation

 

[legaleagle_45]

The 2nd amendment has gotten more respect than you acknowledge, if you are to judge by actions and not words/arguments.

I would disagree. as the period from 1939 to 1990, the 2nd was considered the poor step child of the Bill of Rights. Surprisingly, it was legal scholars from the left who "rediscovered" the 2nd. The high point of anti 2nd attitude was the publication of an article in Parade Magazine by former Chief Justice Warren Burger in January 1990... not a scholarly work by any means and rather contradictory in content, but there it is. But something was already bubbling... Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637-659 (1989) was an eye opening study from a well respected left leaning academic. What followed was torrent of research from all sides of the political dial and the results were quite remarkable... the individual rights thesis was the overwhelming choice of academics and earned the title "standard model". The revolution was completed in 2000 when the darling of left leaning legal academia defected.. Laurence Tribe, famed Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard wrote in his standard text, adopted by most law schools, the following:

[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000]

The next step was to translate the findings of legal academia to the courts... and that sir is a very interesting story involving a doctor in Texas who obtained a ruling which rocked the gun control world and a young Israeli born lawyer who took it from there, fighting roadblocks erected by the NRA at every turn...

However, I digress. The primary problem that I have is that so many people--- including politicians--- believe that any restriction is constitutional merely because some restrictions are permissible. Further, there is a concerted effort to undermine the acceptance of a clearly correct ruling in Heller. The recent regurgitation of a law review article by Carl T. Bogus by Thom Hartmann connecting the 2nd amend to slavery is merely in example. Bogus is aptly named as he was a director in Hand Gun Control, Inc and is an officer in Violence Policy Center. His law review article in 1999, The Hidden History of the 2nd Amend was totally discredited years ago and its primary thesis discarded by all 9 justices in Heller... but there its.

But I never mentioned Colonial arms regulations being about restricting arms, though I think that was the case in a few instances. The point is when you recognize an Authority's right to regulate the door is open to where the regulation can go unless restrictions on that authority are spelled out..as with the 2nd.

The primary ones that I am aware of were laws in the south restricting arms to slaves and free blacks and not allowing free blacks to bear arms in the militia. There was a rather unique law in Boston which prohibited the storage of more than 5 lbs of gun powder in any building and the keeping of loaded firearms in homes. This law was passed after firefighters were injured in a gunpowder incident. There might have been some isolated prohibitions of the transfer of firearms to Native Americans, but that was more common latter as firearms during most of the colonial period were a primary trade item with Indians on the frontier and there were even a line of cheap muskets termed “Indian Trade Guns” which were commonly used for this purpose.

The reason the 2nd mentions 'shall not be abridged' ...

To insure that the general population would own firearms and be familiar with their use so that they could be quickly organized into a well regulated militia if an emergency arose. By protecting an individual right to have and use arms for personal purposes, the framers insured that a large portion of the population would have arms and will be familiar with their use...

you sir have been granted a dispensation

Appreciated..

 

[ima]

Well, even if true, and as I said before, that is a reason to repeal the 2nd Amend ... it is not a reason to ignore the 2nd Amend

Here is all you have to do... first convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose a Constitutional Amendment to the states repealing the 2nd Amend.. Once you have done that, you need only convince 38 states to ratify the proposed amendment and your job is done. Quite simple really and layed out in full in Article V of the Constitution.

I understand the the US Senate may have some extra time on their hands as they could not round up even 40 senators to support an Assault Weapons Ban. You should contact Harry Reid right away, as I am sure Harry is anxious for the Democratic Party to come out in support of the repeal of the 2nd Amend .

GOOD LUCK!!!



You must be looking at a different version of the Constitution than I am. Perhaps your version explains how a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional because that is not in my version either? Does your version of the Constitution also say it is "indivisable with liberty and justice for all"?

Like I said, we're a nation of retards, we can't even ban assault weapons.

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

Peope like you are why the anti-gun side is losing the debate.
Keep up the good work.

Anti-gun folks are losing the debate, or at least not winning it, because the US is FULL OF RETARDS. Geez, we can't even ban assault rifles, like, wtf does an ordinary citizen need an assault weapon for? Except mass murder when they go bonkers.

 

[ima]

The 2nd amendment was to fend off redcoats and indians. There's no need today for a well armed militia... today. Like I said, if the US wasn't full of retards, we could get the 2nd amendment erased and start to regulate guns, like a sane country would.
It also says in the constitution that we're one nation under god, and even dumber proposition than the 2nd amendment.

Was the 3rd Amendment meant to fend off Redcoats?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I don't think any foreign Soldier could give a damn about an of our Amendments.

You should read Federalist 28, by Alexander Hamilton:

Federalist 28 - If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty

Buddy, stop living in the past. Fed 28 was from a different era, a long, long time ago. If you think it's a legitimate argument to say that citizens need guns to defend themselves against a rogue government, then you're an idiot, plain and simple. Today's governments in the US have so much firepower anyways, you stand NO chance with guns against tanks, choppers, cluster bombs, drones, aircraft carriers... So that argument is ludicrous on it's face.

 

[ima]

Well, even if true, and as I said before, that is a reason to repeal the 2nd Amend ... it is not a reason to ignore the 2nd Amend

Here is all you have to do... first convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose a Constitutional Amendment to the states repealing the 2nd Amend.. Once you have done that, you need only convince 38 states to ratify the proposed amendment and your job is done. Quite simple really and layed out in full in Article V of the Constitution.

I understand the the US Senate may have some extra time on their hands as they could not round up even 40 senators to support an Assault Weapons Ban. You should contact Harry Reid right away, as I am sure Harry is anxious for the Democratic Party to come out in support of the repeal of the 2nd Amend .

GOOD LUCK!!!



You must be looking at a different version of the Constitution than I am. Perhaps your version explains how a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional because that is not in my version either? Does your version of the Constitution also say it is "indivisable with liberty and justice for all"?

Like I said, we're a nation of retards, we can't even ban assault weapons.

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

so by repealing the 2nd.....the gun threat disappears?....

Have to start somewhere. Then you heavily regulate bullets and guns. Things would start to get better from there. Like, where do you think the Mexican drug cartels are getting their guns? Turn the tap off, I say.

 

[ima]

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

Remarkable legal reasoning. Never in the history of the entire universe has such an argument been advanced... which can only mean one of two things:

1.) You are the foremost legal scholar this world has ever seen, far surpassing any former or current member of SCOTUS including but not limited to Marshall, Brandeis, Holmes and Cardozo; or,

2.) You are a loon.

I choose option 2.

A gun is a killing machine and I'm for heavy gun regulations. How does that make me a loon?

 

[regent]

Does the second amendment cover other types of arms such as poison gas, or bacteria warfare? Seems we should have some groups in the US pushing for their inclusion under the arms clause. They could be even more effective than some simple assault weapon that can only take out a few dozen people at a time.

 

[T-Bor]

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

You mean like Bush was able to do with the Patriot act?