The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy if you are so devoutly against guns and gun violence I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem putting a sign like this in your yard.

I mean guns don't do anything positive. The threat of the average citizen owning a gun in their home doesn't serve as a deterrent or anything right?
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1451673082.159273.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1451673082.159273.jpg
    70.1 KB · Views: 128
Lawman said:
I'm sure you'd feel the same about free speech, hiring a lawyer, or voting. If this was a republican president signing an executive order instructing two forms of ID (one photo) have to be presented to vote at any poling station in any federal election it would be all over the media and the left would be losing their minds.

If you can't see how the gun control lobby continuously moves the goal posts to eventually outlawing guns by effectively making the barriers to challenging for a person without political connection or financial means to meet then you are either blind to it or deliberately ignoring it.

Just like the Fudds that think assault weapons should be banned as long as I can keep my scoped hunting rifle for deer.... Which will be next but they will call it a sniper rifle first and show the "epidemic" of roadside snipers putting all us people at risk on our morning commutes.
Click to expand...
Haha, you and I will not agree on this issue because you call me a "FUDD" that isn't smart enough to see that my hunting rifle is next. I just don't see how they will come after everything. There is that line they can't cross and I just don't see them doing much more than window-dressing legislation.
 
Vector said:
Haha, you and I will not agree on this issue because you call me a "FUDD" that isn't smart enough to see that my hunting rifle is next. I just don't see how they will come after everything. There is that line they can't cross and I just don't see them doing much more than window-dressing legislation.
Click to expand...

By the strictest definition of "assault weapon" a Rugar 10/22 is in the same class as an HK91/AK/AR. It is only by specific exemption to get the Fudds on board that the gun isn't illegal through the passage of the bill being presented. Take that away through amendment and overnight nearly every hunting rifle and handgun in this country are illegal. How many years did we hear that 10 rounds was all you need. If that's true why did Cuomo and his ilk invent a 7 round standard and overnight make 80% of the semi auto handguns sold in this country illegal.

You're next. Boxer has said it, Fienstien has said it, Sanders has said it. Guns have no place in the society they've convinced themselves is what we need to move toward. At least not guns in civilian hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
You're next. Boxer has said it, Fienstien has said it, Sanders has said it. Guns have no place in the society they've convinced themselves is what we need to move toward. At least not guns in civilian hands.
Click to expand...

They can think and say that all they want, but I think we all know that will never be a reality.
 
Acadia said:
They can think and say that all they want, but I think we all know that will never be a reality.
Click to expand...

Did NY's Law get receded? Did Cuomo get recalled? Are they not again pushing for exactly what they've been screaming for (assault weapons ban) at the federal level. Yeah thank god we have a republican majority to stop it because the politics of the nation and the fact that people nationally don't support a ban didn't seem to do it. These intrenched elected officials don't care what you think or how you interpret the constitution. They don't seem to give much of a care to what the Supreme Court thinks either after watching what Chicago enacted after being told their handgun ban was illegal.

We are talking about a President using executive order to pass what is effectively legislation on a constitutional amendment and "don't worry it'll never happen," is supposed to make us all feel better? That's a great way to negotiate against a side that fundamentally doesn't see your right to bear arms as real or "necessary."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
Did NY's Law get receded? Did Cuomo get recalled? Are they not again pushing for exactly what they've been screaming for (assault weapons ban) at the federal level. Yeah thank god we have a republican majority to stop it because the politics of the nation and the fact that people nationally don't support a ban didn't seem to do it. These intrenched elected officials don't care what you think or how you interpret the constitution. They don't seem to give much of a care to what the Supreme Court thinks either after watching what Chicago enacted after being told their handgun ban was illegal.

We are talking about a President using executive order to pass what is effectively legislation on a constitutional amendment and "don't worry it'll never happen," is supposed to make us all feel better? That's a great way to negotiate against a side that fundamentally doesn't see your right to bear arms as real or "necessary."
Click to expand...

This called government a politics, and there are extremes on all sides. There have been extreme arguments like these for decades, and you will note that for the most part, gun rights are alive and well. If what the president ends up doing is unconstitutional, it will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

By the way, find me a president in the last 50 years that did not use executive orders that some group or constituency would not call an abuse of power. It is par for the course, it is a legal tool, but we have checks and balances for that tool. I worry not.
 
Last edited:
Acadia said:
This called government a politics, and there are extremes on all sides. There have been extreme arguments like these for decades, and you will note that for the most part, gun rights are alive and well. If what the president ends up doing is unconstitutional, it will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

By the way, find me a president in the last 50 years that did not use executive orders that some group or constituency would not call an abuse of power. It is par for the course, it is a legal tool, but we have checks and balances for that tool. I worry not.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court only found heller by a 1 vote victory. Do you think if another Justice like Kagen was put on the bench in place of Thomas gun rights would be an individual and not collective right at the moment.

Gun rights are alive and well is ignoring the fact that only a decade ago did the AW bam expire. The current versions being pushed all don't have ten year sunset dates like that one. It just takes once. One good run through congress with the right people in seats and those rights are gone.

Historically a right once removed is nearly impossible to ever get back. It took 35 years for the Supreme Court to even hear a case challenge to DC's gun ban. Why you would ever rest and say it's all good in this fight I have no idea. They didn't change their mind, they are just as convinced it's the "right thing to do" today as they were ten years ago when they were arguing to extend the AWB or 20 years ago when they passed it. It's not political or at least it shouldn't be. If your side lines up with the idea that yeah something is a right but the state gets to decide how and when you use it you are backing tyranny by any other name. It's a fundamental argument on whether a right can and should be restricted by the state counter to exactly what the intent of the constitution is. What is to stop them where other than public opinion. And what for that matter changed more than the wind, oh right it's public opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hacker15e said:
Even the dissenting opinions in Heller recognized the individual right.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. One of them decided to say it's an individual right but only so far as to allow for service in the militia.

The scarier opinion (Breyer) included statements like, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." And calls for the right not over riding the ability of the state to pass laws to "combat crime."

And none of the opinions on that side chose to recognize the right of a person to maintain a functional firearm (trigger locks and take down requirements being in the DC law). Which is back to the whole "you can have a gun but we will make you keep it in a useless state through legislation" double speak.

I have no doubt they would have chosen even stronger language had they been the majority opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
The Supreme Court only found heller by a 1 vote victory. Do you think if another Justice like Kagen was put on the bench in place of Thomas gun rights would be an individual and not collective right at the moment.

Gun rights are alive and well is ignoring the fact that only a decade ago did the AW bam expire. The current versions being pushed all don't have ten year sunset dates like that one. It just takes once. One good run through congress with the right people in seats and those rights are gone.

Historically a right once removed is nearly impossible to ever get back. It took 35 years for the Supreme Court to even hear a case challenge to DC's gun ban. Why you would ever rest and say it's all good in this fight I have no idea. They didn't change their mind, they are just as convinced it's the "right thing to do" today as they were ten years ago when they were arguing to extend the AWB or 20 years ago when they passed it. It's not political or at least it shouldn't be. If your side lines up with the idea that yeah something is a right but the state gets to decide how and when you use it you are backing tyranny by any other name. It's a fundamental argument on whether a right can and should be restricted by the state counter to exactly what the intent of the constitution is. What is to stop them where other than public opinion. And what for that matter changed more than the wind, oh right it's public opinion.
Click to expand...

Best get used to it, this is how our system works. The fact that these things take so much time for the SCOTUS to hear, along with the margins usually being close, is evidence that some of these laws are not clear cut in terms of their constitutionality. It is a fine line and we are probably always going to be walking it. It's all well and good to scream liberty and 2nd amendment, but all of that is open to interpretation.

So far there are no specifics on what Obama plans to do, so this entire thread is conjecture. I don't agree with the extreme left position on guns and I don't agree with much of what the extreme right stands for. Fortunately the extremes are mostly noise and the majority fall into a more reasonable middle ground on most subjects. I know a whole lot of democrats, and most of them are gun owners.
 
If only Mr Obama would use his "unfinished business" resolution to look outside of "the gun" for the actual root causes of violence in society, and use his "pen and phone" to work on some of that.

If he was really concerned about it, he'd take a step back away from his partisan platform position and look seriously at the social, economic, and legislative links to violent crime.

Those are more complicated issues to parse, but don't involve infringements to constitutionally-protected rights to work on.
 
Acadia said:
That is a a great one liner, but clearly we are okay with some level of infringement. That is where is gets not so clear cut.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem, the inequitable treatment of Liberty for the laws we "like" vs the ones we don't.

Poll taxes are illegal, so would a license to vote. We have people up in arms screaming that requiring you to prove you are who you say you are is too much of a burden for a person and a direct disenfranchisement from a basic right as a citizen. The same political party saying that is turning around and saying to buy a gun or even to have a gun you need to do this laundry list of things we came up with despite the justice department study and statistics showing how ineffective most/all of it is at preventing violence in any impactful way.

You don't get to pick and choose with Liberty. If you allow the government to infringe on a right because it's not popular with you then you invite them go and effect something that is popular with you but maybe not the group later.

For example:There are a lot of people that would argue in the world we live in of terror and such that maybe your right to legal representation isn't as important as it was 200 years ago. That the founding fathers could never have envisioned a world where an individual with a back pack full of nerve agent could kill thousands of people and if they were around today they would say cruel and unusual punishment to stop those acts is permitted. Let's go ahead and amend the 8th amendment just a touch. Let's suspend it in cases of real "danger" or use the fear of what may happen to repeal or restrict it only to people the state deems worthy. Maybe a back ground check where we decide you have ties to terrorists or people being investigated no matter how vague a standard that is and then remove your right to the 8th amendment.

People that would stand up and say lets go after guns because it's needed even if it is a right are fundamentally no different they just enjoy a much greater degree of acceptance and popularity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
Looks like they are wrong and I was right!
/
Click to expand...
Well, actually you're not right about anything. The guy hasn't done anything yet. All he did was get one of his lackeys to get the story out to see how people would react and not pay attention to his complete lack of action on a couple of dozen things he's TOTALLY failed at. His last year in office will be him planning on how he can go down in history as Not Jimmy "Jew Hater" Carter.
x7.gif


Buck up camper. You've got a full year of blaming others why the President can't get anything done and then you'll have 8 years of telling your fellow countrymen how Obama is responsible for the prosperity that started a year after he left office and R's took over and dominated-just like they do at the local and state level. We'll in areas that are managing to keep a leg up on the pile.
Yes, I'm done. Back to your trolling sweet baby man child.
 
This is purely about saving white lives. If they were so worried about saving lives otherwise, they would not be harping on the statistical anomoly, assault rifles, they would be going after Handguns... But as long as they worry more about furniture than facts, I will never support any measure put forth.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
Not sure who you are calling a moron as he hasn't used executive orders as much as other Presidents....

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Click to expand...

Ah yes the "well he did it first" excuse.

Legislation through executive order... It's wrong. Unlike you I don't care what letter is next to the president that did it.

Like I said. Moron.... Well maybe Useful idiot would be a better term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top