Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

Actually they believe in NRA contributions. You wouldn't know what the Constitution says to believe in it.

:up_yours: ...more honest than subversive lefties using The Peoples' own TAX DOLLARS against their Constitutional rights....

The directives on gun violence President Obama signed Wednesday were meant to seem harmless. A closer look at the president’s first memorandum reveals it to be a sneaky assault on congressional authority in order to fund gun-control propaganda.

Getting this done has been on the White House “to do” list for some time. In his 2013 budget submission, Mr. Obama deleted the prohibition that has been in effect since 1995 on the use of federal funds to advocate or promote gun control.

Mr. Obama is trying to steamroll the Democratic and Republican majorities that kept the ban intact by labeling the advocacy as research. “While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” said Mr. Obama.

Under the terms of the memo, CDC may “sponsor” another entity to conduct the research, which is a handy way of funneling taxpayer cash to sympathetic gun-control groups.

Read more: MILLER: Tax dollars for gun control - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

You are full of shit and just a stupid gun nut, trying to make something out of nothing.

Don't post some bullshit and speak in generalities! Post the Executive Orders and explain exactly why they are wrong!

you're the one full of shit......whats the matter... you too stupid to look them up yourself....?

the very fact that DHHS and CDC are being assigned this research means that guns are being treated by the government as some sort of "problem" or "disease"......

Beyond the executive orders, there were a few presidential memorandums to compliment and further implement the Obama administration’s all-out attack on the 2nd Amendment.
...
Presidential Memorandum, “Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence” empowers the Secretary of DHHS and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , as well as “other scientific agencies within” the DHHS to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”

The Secretary of DHHS will “begin by identifying the most pressing research questions with the greatest potential public health impact, and by assessing existing public health interventions being implemented across the Nation to prevent gun violence.”

23 Executive Orders on Federal Gun Grab Explained | OCCUPY CORPORATISM

Presidential Memorandum -- Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence | The White House
 
Last edited:
Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

20020045-449_lrg.jpg


This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

bushmaster_ar15_carbine.jpg


It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

Therefore, perhaps we should also reconsider the First Amendment too. Remember they didn't have TV, cell phones and fast communcations as we do today. While we're at it let's go after the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.
Would that satisfy you and Oblamer?
Hmm... didn't we find out today that Oblamer violated the Constitution again with those illegal appointments to the NLRB.
 
Don't post some bullshit and speak in generalities! Post the Executive Orders and explain exactly why they are wrong!

EO 1 thru 23 = focused on the law abiding, dealers and states

EO Focused on criminals = None.

You're a liar, so what is your opinion worth? Here is a sample.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 11. Nominate an ATF director. 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
 
:up_yours: ...more honest than subversive lefties using The Peoples' own TAX DOLLARS against their Constitutional rights....

You are full of shit and just a stupid gun nut, trying to make something out of nothing.

Don't post some bullshit and speak in generalities! Post the Executive Orders and explain exactly why they are wrong!

Face it, none of those EOs are designed to INCREASE gun rights moron.

Gun rights as you call them are part of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. How does a President change that?
 
:up_yours: ...more honest than subversive lefties using The Peoples' own TAX DOLLARS against their Constitutional rights....

You are full of shit and just a stupid gun nut, trying to make something out of nothing.

Don't post some bullshit and speak in generalities! Post the Executive Orders and explain exactly why they are wrong!

you're the one full of shit......whats the matter... you too stupid to look them up yourself....?

the very fact that DHHS and CDC are being assigned this research means that guns are being treated by the government as some sort of "problem" or "disease"......

Beyond the executive orders, there were a few presidential memorandums to compliment and further implement the Obama administration’s all-out attack on the 2nd Amendment.
...
Presidential Memorandum, “Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence” empowers the Secretary of DHHS and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , as well as “other scientific agencies within” the DHHS to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”

The Secretary of DHHS will “begin by identifying the most pressing research questions with the greatest potential public health impact, and by assessing existing public health interventions being implemented across the Nation to prevent gun violence.”

23 Executive Orders on Federal Gun Grab Explained | OCCUPY CORPORATISM

Presidential Memorandum -- Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence | The White House

You people are being stupid, but I guess you don't have much choice, do you?
 
vehicular licensing does't stop accidents or vehicular assault....so why would gun licensing...?

ps: don't you think the government knows what kind and how many cars you own...? the same would be true for guns...

No, but imagine what the roads would be like without licensing. Where any 90 year old half blind individual could drive at will. Where any 9 year old who could reach the gas pedals could drive around at will.

And does the Government really know how many vehicles I own? At this time I own 5. A motorcycle and trailer registered in Oregon. A truck and motor home registered in Texas. And another truck, registered in California (where I live). So do they really know how many vehicles I own? I seriously doubt that.
 
I say we solve a lot of this with gun owner licensing.

Notice, I do not say "gun registration", I say "gun owner licensing". Much like with cars.

The license simply shows that an individual has gone through a background check and basic mental health screening. And that they have had at least a gun safety course or have a military or law enforcement background (where such courses are given to everybody).

Then every 3-4 years they need to be renewed, with the background and mental health checks being redone. And if anything changes in their status (felony conviction, restraining order, mental instability) their license is revoked and then whatever steps needed are taken.

But at the same time, this license should in no way be tied to the weapons they may own. In the same way the state does not know if I use a moped or Dodge 3500 simply by my license, these should not be tied to actual firearms.

And this should remove a lot of the checks given now, like waiting periods beyond 24 hours (enough to check the license is still valid) should therefore be removed.

All we need to do now is to get individuals and mental health officials to actually do their jobs.

a concealed carry permit is just what you described.

I jumped through hoops to get mine and my fingerprints are on file with the state.

That permit should be enough for anyone and with it I should be able to buy what ever weapon I want with no questions asked.
 
But the argument JoeB seems to be making, that the President seems to be making, that other pro more gun control people seem to be making, is that taking my gun will fix the problem.

Lets focus on the criminal for a change instead of thinking that more controls on responsible, law abiding citizens is the way to accomplish something.

The thing is, the criminal is only a part of the problem. Most gun deaths are sucides, domestic murders and accidents...

Lanza, Holmes, Loughner all had clean criminal records before they went on their shooting sprees. Cho (the VA Tech shooter) should have been on watch lists and wasn't. Spengler shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but he got his girlfriend to buy them for him.

But if we had a society that treated gun ownership responsibly, no one in their right mind would have sold these idiots or their mothers or girlfriends guns. But the crazy gun whack who thinks that we all need military grade weapons in case we have to take on the government some day screams if someone says, "Hey, maybe we should look into who has guns."
 
Therefore, perhaps we should also reconsider the First Amendment too. Remember they didn't have TV, cell phones and fast communcations as we do today. While we're at it let's go after the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.
Would that satisfy you and Oblamer?
Hmm... didn't we find out today that Oblamer violated the Constitution again with those illegal appointments to the NLRB.

Actually, all those "fast" communications are regulated by the government.

It's why Larry Flynt can't broadcast German Corpophilia Porn on an illegal transmitter during kiddy hour.
 
I say we solve a lot of this with gun owner licensing.

Notice, I do not say "gun registration", I say "gun owner licensing". Much like with cars.

The license simply shows that an individual has gone through a background check and basic mental health screening. And that they have had at least a gun safety course or have a military or law enforcement background (where such courses are given to everybody).

Then every 3-4 years they need to be renewed, with the background and mental health checks being redone. And if anything changes in their status (felony conviction, restraining order, mental instability) their license is revoked and then whatever steps needed are taken.

But at the same time, this license should in no way be tied to the weapons they may own. In the same way the state does not know if I use a moped or Dodge 3500 simply by my license, these should not be tied to actual firearms.

And this should remove a lot of the checks given now, like waiting periods beyond 24 hours (enough to check the license is still valid) should therefore be removed.

All we need to do now is to get individuals and mental health officials to actually do their jobs.

a concealed carry permit is just what you described.

I jumped through hoops to get mine and my fingerprints are on file with the state.

That permit should be enough for anyone and with it I should be able to buy what ever weapon I want with no questions asked.

You keep saying that, but who knows what you have done since you received your CCP?
 
I say we solve a lot of this with gun owner licensing.

Notice, I do not say "gun registration", I say "gun owner licensing". Much like with cars.

The license simply shows that an individual has gone through a background check and basic mental health screening. And that they have had at least a gun safety course or have a military or law enforcement background (where such courses are given to everybody).

Then every 3-4 years they need to be renewed, with the background and mental health checks being redone. And if anything changes in their status (felony conviction, restraining order, mental instability) their license is revoked and then whatever steps needed are taken.

But at the same time, this license should in no way be tied to the weapons they may own. In the same way the state does not know if I use a moped or Dodge 3500 simply by my license, these should not be tied to actual firearms.

And this should remove a lot of the checks given now, like waiting periods beyond 24 hours (enough to check the license is still valid) should therefore be removed.

All we need to do now is to get individuals and mental health officials to actually do their jobs.

a concealed carry permit is just what you described.

I jumped through hoops to get mine and my fingerprints are on file with the state.

That permit should be enough for anyone and with it I should be able to buy what ever weapon I want with no questions asked.

You keep saying that, but who knows what you have done since you received your CCP?

If I am convicted of a crime my carry permit is the first thing that will be revoked you idiot.

Even if I am charged with a crime I will lose my permit.

You don't know much about the law do you?
 
Mushroom's suggestion of licensing those who take firearms into the public sector is not all that bad an idea. It could be a simple written test to verify knowledge of basic laws and gun safety and involve a nominal fee. Like drivers' licenses, it could be renewed easily, but would not be renewed without a closer look if your name was on a 'no gun' list due to mental problems or whatever. And of course the license could be revoked if somebody was careless or endangered others with a firearm or committed a crime with a firearm.

Perhaps a more stringent background check and qualification process could be required to be licensed for automatic weapons just as an additional layer of proficiency is required for people to get a Class C driver's license.

I would suggest that the license should be good for ten years or so like a Passport though. It should not be a burden to get. And would be fully renewable so long as there had been no serious infractions . And no license would be necessary if you did not take your weapons into public places any more than you are required to have a drivers' license if you drive your vehicle only on your own property.

And agreed, the license should require no disclosure of any kind of whatever weapons you own just as a driver's license requires no disclosure of the kinds of vehicles you own.
 
I find needing a license to practice a Constitutional right objectionable Foxfyre. Someone raised an interesting point here in Michigan last week. A firearm manufactured in Michigan and sold to a Michigan should be exempt from any federal law.
 
I find needing a license to practice a Constitutional right objectionable Foxfyre. Someone raised an interesting point here in Michigan last week. A firearm manufactured in Michigan and sold to a Michigan should be exempt from any federal law.

There are already laws restricting our constitutional right to bear arms on a school ground, in a bar, in a courthouse, etc. etc. etc. In New Mexico, the law says you can wear a visible gun in a holster on your hip or carry a rifle or shotgun wherever you please so long as it is visible - AND - provided it is not a place where no guns are allowed. Almost every state or province has laws against discharging a weapon in close proximity to other people. It requires jumping through a whole bunch of hoops to get a CCP though.

A license to carry and use a firearm in public would simply provide another layer of insurance that the person knew the laws regarding use of those weapons and had at least basic knowledge of gun safety. I can't see how that would be any infringement of our rights any more than requiring a newspaper to acquire a business license or a church to secure a not-for-profit charter and permit to build.
 
Last edited:
I find needing a license to practice a Constitutional right objectionable Foxfyre. Someone raised an interesting point here in Michigan last week. A firearm manufactured in Michigan and sold to a Michigan should be exempt from any federal law.

There are already laws restricting our constitutional right to bear arms on a school ground, in a bar, in a courthouse, etc. etc. etc. In New Mexico, the law says you can wear a visible gun in a holster on your hip or carry a rifle or shotgun wherever you please so long as it is visible - AND - provided it is not a place where no guns are allowed. Almost every state or province has laws against discharging a weapon in close proximity to other people. It requires jumping through a whole bunch of hoops to get a CCP though.

A license would simply provide another layer of insurance that the person knew the laws regarding use of those weapons and had at least basic knowledge of gun safety. I can't see how that would be any infringement of our rights any more than requiring a newspaper to acquire a business license or a church to secure a not-for-profit charter and permit to build.
Because granting a license is the same thing as acknowledging that the government has the absolute authority to regulate your rights as it sees fit, conditioned upon the whims of current fads.

Governments are not empowered to grant (license) or revoke (ban) rights. They exist for the purpose of protecting those rights from abuses.

Giving ground on any single front is tantamount to saying that the people do not have rights that are not given to them by the rulers of our nation.
 
When you buy into the system, you're lost.

I think if you DID adopt a system of licensing, it should be the burden of government to deny you (presumed you should have a license) and it should cost no more than $5. The test should be very basic and general, so that most people applying can pass easily.
 

Forum List

Back
Top