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

[legaleagle_45]

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.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

 

[Darkwind]

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?

Benjamin Franklin expressing why he was voting in favor of the proposed Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Monday, September 17, 1787:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them... In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad.

Avalon Project - Madison Debates - September 17

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?

Of course they did... but have you considered that without those concessions the Constitution would never have been approved? Many historians believe the seeds for the destruction of slavery were sown in the Constitution. This is based upon the growth of non slave states in the Union, leading the slave states to be a continuning and permanent minority voice in the Union. Most of the crisis leading up to the Civil War dealt with not slavery itself, but the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories and the admission of new slave staes. The South had no chance of matching the North in the House (partly as a result of the 3/5ths compromise), but they insisted upon maintaining a "veto" in the Senate. The newly elected Republican President Lincoln ran on a platform not to abolish slavery, but upon a platform of preventing the expansion of slavery into the territories.

Such a situation could not be tolerated as the South would lose all political clout in the Union... thus the Civil War. The theory goes that the Constitution enticed the South into the Union which would inevitably lead to the abolition of slavery because of changing demographics. Without those enticements, no such Union would have occured and slavery would have persisted much longer in the South and would probably still be maintained as a peonage system of some sort.

BTW... a bit of trivia. Franklin himself was one of the very first "abolitionists" in America, Hamilton was also very strongly abolitionist...

Very good. You are correct. The civil war started out as a fear by the south that they would soon find themselves in a permanent minority position inside the United States if they were not allowed to have slavery in new territories that were opening in the west. particularly Kansas, Texas and Missouri territories. The North, with its industry, was outpacing the south by huge strides and the sentiment to to end slavery, which began in the first great awakening, and found solid traction and gained momentum in the second great awakening. The south could read the writing on the wall and sought to expand its power in Congress (back then, they actually still believed an fought for the notion that Congress, not the President, was the actual power in this country) just to keep pace with the land acquisition of the north (meaning free) states.

 

[francoHFW]

It's a fact, not a complaint, dupes. We get it, you hate him obsessively- what could explain that?

 

[Ravi]

What a dopey thread. Obama merely stated that the government cannot confiscate your guns. That's debatable, of course, since the government could confiscate certain types of guns.

btw, the constitution protected the owning of slaves. A sad chapter in our history.

 

[candycorn]

Flawed in some ways perhaps, not in every way.

You'll have to excuse Dante - he doesn't fit in well with adults who would like to have an honest, civil discussion.

Honest and civil? You have done neither in your time here.

First: civility: the OP is not civil

Second: honesty: Invalid arguments are not exactly honest

The document that calls 20% of our current population 3/5 of a human is what we live under.

Those calling themselves "adults" would do well to admit that when you live under a 200+ year old business model, you're destined to have problems. We do live under one and we have a completely dysfunctional federal government which is at time open to the highest bidder.

Gun nuts are called "nuts" for good reason

 

[candycorn]

"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..." "Do you agree to these facts or am I in error?" - http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-b...-gun-control-in-the-americas-and-america.html

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?

What about the armor piercing, cyanide laced, nuclear tipped rounds?

All at once, the bullet goes into the body, the nuke lights up the area, and you see the cyanide capsules begin to eat away at the flesh in a moving X-Ray type of scene? I'm sure that is used just by sportsmen and hunters.

 

[Stephanie]

It's a fact, not a complaint, dupes. We get it, you hate him obsessively- what could explain that?

and you all love him obsessively...You ever hear of Jim Jones and Jonestown?
a lot of you remind me of that

 

[ScienceRocks]

They have their heads up his ass as far as the people of the USSR had theirs with Stalin. I'm not kidding.

 

[Sallow]

I only asked if you agreed with a question. .

My area of expertise Dante. so I tend to be verbose.

btw, It is my understanding that in colonial America, the recognized authority regulated arms and ammo because of the natives as well as the slaves, so Americans have historically recognized the right of the authorities to regulate arms and ammo.

The regulation which you speak was to require every household to have firearms, Dante.

I am aware of no gun regulations which restricted firearms to the free white population... to the contrary, ownership was actively encouraged and often mandated.

That was before we had police and a standing army.

After that? It was not.

The gunfight at the OK Corral was one of many attempts to get guns under control in the Old West.

 

[Stephanie]

I just hope they go after abortions next and try to get them under control...Ban them anyone?

 

[ima]

I just hope they go after abortions next and try to get them under control...Ban them anyone?

How would you enforce the ban?

 

[Stephanie]

I just hope they go after abortions next and try to get them under control...Ban them anyone?

How would you enforce the ban?

ask the people in favor of gun control, they have all the answers

 

[ima]

Just ban bullets. Bullets don't enjoy any constitutional protection, it's the right to bear arms, not bullets.

cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...

Bullets aren't even part of the gun. Please try again.

Plus, you could still make your own bullets, but that would eliminate so many people from being able to shoot, so it would still be good.

Plus, the laws we have now aren't working, can we agree on that?
Oh, and ban assault weapons outright, there's no need for that. Anyways, the right to bear arms doesn't say the right to bear any motherfucking weapon that you want. You'd still have the right to bear arms.

 

[Harry Dresden]

"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..." "Do you agree to these facts or am I in error?" - http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-b...-gun-control-in-the-americas-and-america.html

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.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just ban bullets. Bullets don't enjoy any constitutional protection, it's the right to bear arms, not bullets.

cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...

Bullets aren't even part of the gun. Please try again.

Plus, you could still make your own bullets, but that would eliminate so many people from being able to shoot, so it would still be good.

Plus, the laws we have now aren't working, can we agree on that?
Oh, and ban assault weapons outright, there's no need for that. Anyways, the right to bear arms doesn't say the right to bear any motherfucking weapon that you want. You'd still have the right to bear arms.

their not?.....what was a gun made to do?.....and without those "parts" can it do what it was made for?...and if Bullets are banned and you make your own.....are you still not breaking the law?....

 

[M14 Shooter]

cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...

Bullets aren't even part of the gun. Please try again.

Plus, you could still make your own bullets, but that would eliminate so many people from being able to shoot, so it would still be good.

Plus, the laws we have now aren't working, can we agree on that?
Oh, and ban assault weapons outright, there's no need for that. Anyways, the right to bear arms doesn't say the right to bear any motherfucking weapon that you want. You'd still have the right to bear arms.

their not?.....what was a gun made to do?.....and without those "parts" can it do what it was made for?...and if Bullets are banned and you make your own.....are you still not breaking the law?....

Banning ammunition does not violate the 2nd amendment just like banning words does not violate the 1st.

 

[legaleagle_45]

That was before we had police and a standing army..

Actually we did have an army, it numbered less than 800 soldiers during the relevant time frame and were primarily based at West Point and forts laong the then western frontier. But that is irrelevant for anyone other than US Army proponents who like to brag about their continous existence going back to 1775. The fact is that they did NOT want a large standing army, considering it the "bane of liberty".

However, it seems your primary assertion is that the reasons giving rise to the 2nd Amend no longer exist... Well, even if true, 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!!!

The gunfight at the OK Corral was one of many attempts to get guns under control in the Old West.

Yep, and lynchings in the South following the Civil War were an attempt to keep newly freed blacks in their place. Your point?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Bullets aren't even part of the gun. Please try again.

Why don't you inform SCOTUS of their error because in Heller they ruled that the right to keep and bear arms included a right to have a loaded and fully functional arm, stricking down a law which required the firearm to be unloaded and locked up. Here is their address and phone #:

1 First St NE Washington, DC 20543
(202) 479-3000

I am sure that SCOTUS will be so impressed with your reasoning skills that the will revise their ruling right away. Good luck!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just ban bullets. Bullets don't enjoy any constitutional protection, it's the right to bear arms, not bullets.

cant do that....that would be infringing on your right ......if they make a law to ban a critical part of the gun what good is the gun?...your right has just been infringed...

Bullets aren't even part of the gun. Please try again.

Plus, you could still make your own bullets, but that would eliminate so many people from being able to shoot, so it would still be good.

Plus, the laws we have now aren't working, can we agree on that?
Oh, and ban assault weapons outright, there's no need for that. Anyways, the right to bear arms doesn't say the right to bear any motherfucking weapon that you want. You'd still have the right to bear arms.

And it did not take long for a lib to admit the real agenda. That is to disarm the population.
Shit! Why not. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be bridged. SO the agenda does an end around....it makes the ammunition harder to obtain.
You people are so stupid. You could not go undetected if you were trying to sneak up on a rock.