The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Replies

• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Jan 17, 2013

  Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a Government Agency!
  

  ReactReply
• M_

  

  M_JimmieM_M

  Jan 17, 2013

  DesertRat I pretty much agree with you, but remember this was tried by Clinton I think it was. He was not able to make it work either.
  What he put in was later removed. Those of us that believe in our freedoms given to us in the Constitution do need to speak up so our congressman and senators know where we stand. They are our first line of letting  Uncle Sam know what we want. There is also some Sherrifs and Mayors that have taken the side of Freedom as well. I think in the long run we will win out if we keep our voices being heard. Remember to point out it was not the gun, but the thief or criminal that stoll the gun from a legal owner that committed 95 % of the crimes. they probably used a car and cell phone during this crime as well. What are they going to do to address that part of things?
  
  

  ReactReply
• M_

  

  M_JimmieM_M

  Jan 17, 2013

  [quote]Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a Government Agency!
  
  
  
  
  [/quote]That's right. Here in Oregon you can by cigs and alcohol in the same store controlled by AT&F. so where is the guns???
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Jan 18, 2013

  Thank you all for your support of the well-regulated militia clause. Let's talk about this again when y'all are back from your next stint with your state's National Guard.
  
  There is no "long slide." Gun ownership in the US has always been mostly military, and rural. What we see in the Westerns is true: when the cowboys got to Dodge City, they had to go to the sheriff and turn in their guns. They got them back again when they went out on the range. As the country becomes more urban - and, guys, if you're within a ten-minute drive from Wal-Mart, if a fire could leap from a neighbhor's yard to your house, you're urban - all sorts of open-range behavior become less possible and less appropriate. That's not a government power grab, it's the business of settling a continent.
  
  The suburban fantasy - a living situation that is felt to be rural but is in fact fully urban, with no wilderness or agricultural component - misleads us on this.
  
  (ps - yea, all the continents were settled before people with guns arrived, but "settlement" is such a warm 'n fuzzy word it's hard to resist.)
  
  
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  macnude

  Jan 18, 2013

  I own three hand guns. I have a Concealed Weapon Permit (CWP) and I keep my skills sharp by regular practice on the range. I don't believe in taking a knife to a gun fight. So, I am not one to infring upon the right to be legally armed. However, I feel that background checks make it less likely that I will ever have to use these weapons for self protection. Nor, is an exstended magizine necessary for protection. If the rounds loaded in the revolvers or the semi-auto arn't enough, I'm probably dead already.Guns in the hands of responsible owners can be a good thing and a deterrent to violent crime. We should, however, support any measure to keep guns out of the hands of the psycos and criminals. This is not an infrigment of rights, only common sense.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Jan 18, 2013

  
  
  Lets do the math, liars can figure but figures can't lie. Just like in the recent school shootings that has provoked the situation we now see shows we need to re-think, but changing the deepest roots of our constitution that has kept this a free nation is just plain stupid. On the other hand our schools and our children are the most valuable objects closest to our hearts, well more worth protecting than even our military bases, meaning that we should beef up armed security measures around our schools in much the same manner as our military installations. No one seems to be trying to penetrate our military bases, post armed national guard personnel in and about school grounds, instead of wasting time trying to make laws that reduce arms that have made us a free nation, don't go backwards!
  
  

  ReactReply
• JA

  

  jason

  Jan 18, 2013

  has obama changed his gun stance to include all guns or still mainly just automatic assult type weapons? i'm asking because i'm haven't been following it close. what is the purpose of an average citizen owning an automatic weapon? in ohio there really isn't anything to hunt with that type of weapon and it seems kinda expensive weapon just to target shoot.
  
  this is sounding like the same thing people have been getting worked up over whenever a president(or candidate) wants some sort of change in gun control.  i'm not against people having rifles or shotguns for hunting or handguns for target shooting or protection(i have a handgun and a shotgun myself).
  
  more gun control laws aren't going to help because they only usually involve people who play it by the book. instead of focusing on the guns themselves, focus on the means to acquire them - the gun shows. i know the vendors don't have the means to check backgrounds at those type of shows but they could have law enforcement or govt. official with access to do so at the shows. they could make it a requirement to have the said person run a check before the sale is completed. like i said already, more laws aren't going to do much good since the existing ones aren't exactly being enforced.

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRatOriginal Poster

  Jan 18, 2013

  [quote]
  
  I am the youngest, and spent 27 years in the military.  My other brothers are against guns in the home BIG TIME.  One lives in Boston area, one lives in Chicago area, one lives in Washington D.C. area.  All three areas are major supporters of Oboma.[/quote]
  
  First: Thank you for your service to our Country.
  
  Isn't it interesting that the places that have the most restrictions against gun ownership have the highest crime rates.

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRatOriginal Poster

  Jan 18, 2013

  In a few days BHO will again take the oath of office where he will morally commit himself to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has already broken his last pledge; let's see how long it takes him to renounce this one.

  ReactReply
• J.

  

  J.

  Jan 19, 2013

  [quote]has obama changed his gun stance to include all guns or still mainly just automatic assult type weapons? i'm asking because i'm haven't been following it close. what is the purpose of an average citizen owning an automatic weapon? in ohio there really isn't anything to hunt with that type of weapon and it seems kinda expensive weapon just to target shoot.
  
  this is sounding like the same thing people have been getting worked up over whenever a president(or candidate) wants some sort of change in gun control.  i'm not against people having rifles or shotguns for hunting or handguns for target shooting or protection(i have a handgun and a shotgun myself).
  
  more gun control laws aren't going to help because they only usually involve people who play it by the book. instead of focusing on the guns themselves, focus on the means to acquire them - the gun shows. i know the vendors don't have the means to check backgrounds at those type of shows but they could have law enforcement or govt. official with access to do so at the shows. they could make it a requirement to have the said person run a check before the sale is completed. like i said already, more laws aren't going to do much good since the existing ones aren't exactly being enforced.   [/quote]It has been illegal for regular citizens to own automatic weapons since 1968, so obviously Obama wants more than just automatic weapons banned. The members of the gun ban agenda LOVE it when people confuse automatic weapons (a.k.a. machine guns) with semi-automatic weapons (including some shotguns and rifles, and ALL pistols). They also LOVE it when people confuse assault rifles (which are machine guns) with their new go-to term "assault weapon" which has no legal definition, but seems to be any semi-automatic weapon that looks kind of like an automatic weapon. Obama won't say it like Feinstein, but he wants ALL guns banned, unless they are held by the Secret Service protecting him.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Jan 19, 2013

  [quote]Al, well, I guess it's time to rile up the lefties again -- give them a post or two for their vendetta flagging.
  
  Post #6
  
  [quote]Thank you all for your support of the well-regulated militia clause. Let's talk about this again when y'all are back from your next stint with your state's National Guard.[/quote]
  Nice attempt at diversion, BUT...
  
  Amendment II (1791)
  
  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the peopleto keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
  
  The world "people is used ten times in the Constitution and the Amendments. However, if we believe the egregious wailing of the insatiable gun-grabbers, only in the Second Amendment does the word NOT refer to the citzenry. There is exactly zero justification for that interpretation, but zealots on a political jihad don't allow little things like facts to dissuade them.
  
  [quote]There is no "long slide." Gun ownership in the US has always been mostly military, and rural.[/quote]
  Ever wonder why the per-capita crime rate in the urban sewers is vastly higher than in those rural areas where the "bitter clingers" live (Obozo's term)? The answer is obvious: criminals are far less likely to commit their crimes against people who just might be able to off their sorry arses. They prefer cities because the streets have been made safe for them by clueless kakistocrats.
  
  Where are the highest firearm crime rates in the CONUS? Places like New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.
  
  Where are the most stringent and oppressive firearms laws? Places like New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.
  
  Where can one find irrefutable evidence that preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves is, to be exceedingly kind, counterproductive? Places like New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.
  
  Here's a cold, hard fact: courts have made clear that the police have no mandate to protect the people. PerWarren v. District of Columbia:
  
  [quote]By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[/quote]
  The cops aren't there to protect you. They arrive after the fact to scope out what happened and draw chalk lines around the bodies.
  
  Another stat: the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds. The response time to a high-priority 9-1-1 call varies widely, but at the minimum it is over two minutes. It's just a matter of logistics.
  
  So what are you going to do while waiting for the LEO to show up? Far too often you're going to die. The logical, realistic choice is as follows: you can beg and plead with your felonious assailant to let you live, or you can explain to the cops (when they finally arrive) how that bullet hole happened to be in the bastard's head.
  
  Here's a simple fact: you might call 9-1-1 and hope, but ultimately you are your own 9-1-1. No one will protect you except you. Screw what those bastards in Washington think about your right to self-protection. They all have armed body guards, so they don't give a shit about you. If the time arrives when it's a choice between being in control and being a victim, there is no choice.
  
  The only workable gun control is a two-handed Weaver stance and the ability to hit the target.
  
  ==================================================
  
  Post #19
  
  [quote]Please tell me the need for a semi-automatic assault style weapon...[/quote]
  In return, please tell us why your dislike for a "semi-automatic assault style weapon" translates to a rationale for taking it way from a law-abiding citizen who owns one. Liberals have had a consistent mantra for decades: "I don't like it, so you can't have it."
  
  That aside, "assault weapon" is a gun-grabber-invented term that found its way into the liberal argot with the infamous 1994 "assult weapons ban" (a fraud that in fact banned NOTHING). The designation "assault weapon" was based entirely on cosmetics. If a gun looked military, it was an assault weapon. Liberals are good at inventing meaningless standards.
  
  [quote]... with 10 or more rounds?[/quote]
  Again, it's a frivolous issue. The fact that a magazine might hold 15 or 20 rounds does not presuppose that the owner will go postal and mow down a shiteload of people. It's part of the firearm's design, and poses not one iota more danger to anyone than a lower-capacity magazine.
  
  [quote]or armour piercing bullets?[/quote]
  Ah, shit, THAT tired old gun-grabber trope again.
  
  [quote]* "Armor piercing" ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces.
  
  * Rather than opposing the ban on "armor piercing" ammunition, the NRA was in fact instrumental in crafting the law that Congress ultimately passed.
  
  * When properly wearing the appropriate body armor, not one law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their vest. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certifies three levels of body armor. The most commonly worn, Level IIA, offers realistic protection against all .22, .25, .32, .380, and .38, caliber handgun ammunition, against most 9mm, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .44 Magnum handgun ammunition and against 000 buck shotgun pellets. Level II and Level IIIA armor protects from even greater threats including 12 gauge shotgun slugs and the "hottest" .44 Magnum rounds.
  
  "Cop-killer" bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby. An objective, rational look at the facts quickly separates the myth from the reality. Knowledge is power.[/quote]
  "Cop-killer" Bullets
  
  [quote]Please tell me why a gun is needed so badly, that one cannot wait for a more thorough background check, before one obtains said gun??[/quote]
  Please tell us why that is of concern to you.
  
  ==================================================
  
  The most abhorrent aftermath of the Sandy Hooks massacre was that the liberals/DemonicRATs were screeching about more gun control before the kids' blood was dry on the floor. The shameless, loathsome, despicable bastards exploited a tragedy for purely political reasons.
  
  Any why the insane obsession for "doing something" ASAP? The answer is simple: they wanted to feed off the shock and the grief while it was still fresh. They knew that with the passage of time, the emotions and the horror would fade, making it harder to ram their unconstitutional demands down America's throat. They have no humanity.
  
  As for that treasonous bastard in the People's House, it is unlikely that his multi-orgasmic spate of EOs could stand up to legal challenges. However, inasmuch as he has shown only contempt for America, its Constitution and its laws, illegality is of no concern to him.
  
  As well, who is gullible and naive enough to believe that the 23 EOs were penned in the aftermath of the shootings? Anyone with more than a microclue is aware that they have been sitting in a desk or file cabinet waiting for the opportunity to use them. And I, being a cynic, envision Obozo and his lackies high-fiving one another as the news of the tragedy unfolded, aware of Rahm Emanuel's cynical advice: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
  
  He has been brazenly exploting children since this business began, culminating with his photo-op signing of the EOs (none of which would have prevented Sandy Hook) with his backdrop of children being used like tools and then discarded when they have no more propaganda value.
  
  And as for that shrieking harridan, Dianne Feinstein, the self-appointed World's Greatest Authority on firearms, this photo of her with an AK-47 is damning.
  
  
  
  For those who don't like guns, feel free not to own them. But do keep to yourselves your opinions about why the rest of us should surrender them because of your dislike. We really don't care.
  
  Lastly, if I happen to be near a gun-hater whose arse is on a griddle because of a thug with an unlicensed, illegal gun, I shall considerately refrain from deploying my weapon in his defense, not wishing to upset him. After all, if he begs and grovels and cries rivers of tears and wails, "Please don't hurt me! I'm no danger to you!" with great sincerity, the punk may just fall on the ground laughing, giving the coward a chance to run.
  
  [/quote]BRAVO NudeInMa, This time you have really hit the nail on the head! We have Constitutional Rights to have and bear arms that was etched in stone from our extremely wise founders, who by the way took to arms to fight for the founding of this great nation. Any one with more than a molecule of brain matter knows you do not get rid of the main tools that brought this great nation into existence.
  
  Only the likes of pinkos and criminals are the ones who would like to see us disarmed and defenseless. We have the rights and we at present have the arms to keep and preserve those rights, as those rights are well worth keeping and fighting for as did our founding fathers. Protecting the constitution is every citizens duty!
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Jan 20, 2013

  so why stop at Semi- automatic assault weaponry? why not rocket launchers, grenades, hell nuclear arms, biological arms.  where do you draw the line?
  

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertGymRat

  Jan 20, 2013

  I FULLY support the Second Amendment and I'm no fan of President Obama, but I think it's important not to get caught up in the hysteria of losing your right to bear arms.  It's BIG money for the gun industry every time this culture war erupts.  They want you to buy as many guns, as much ammo as you can possibly get your hands on.  There's talk here about losing constitutional rights, a slide into socialism, letting the lefty elitists take over our country.  These are great talking points that hit a rough nerve, and lead to hefty profits.  The gun lobby is too strong and too entrenched in our fine country.  The President's proposal for gun control is mere lip service to his constituents.  If you don't believe me, just watch what happens.

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertGymRat

  Jan 21, 2013

  Leave it to you NIMA to double whammy this string with the abortion issue.  ; )  In all seriousness, I respect your opinion, passion and knowledge of guns and gun rights.  No doubt there are self-professed liberals, or gun grabbers as you call them that have worked for decades to nullify the power of the Second Amendment.  And it is important to continue the fight to keep the right to bear arms. But most Americans including those that represent us in government are somewhere in the middle, and their opinions may actually vacillate dependent on current events, or even an horrific event they may experience involving crime and possibly a gun.  You may disagree with me here, but it isn't black or white and not all that oppose absolute gun rights are  stereotypical liberals.  I bring this up not because I have any interest in proving you wrong (and I certainly don't consider you a fool), but I think those that support gun rights like me and you are better suited to not stereotype those that disagree, as you can't create a persuasive argument by assuming those that oppose gun rights to one degree or another are all the same.

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Jan 22, 2013

  Probably along with others from lesser gun cultures than the USA, I look at the arguments presented here (and elsewhere) and think on the 'Right of Might'.
  If you need a gun to defend yourself, fine - but you need a bigger gun than the your aggressor? Yes? So .22's are useless, .38's too it seems. Fine, get a bigger gun, one with more bullets too, so it begs the question, why stop at guns? What will you need next to defend yourself?
  As an aside the nuclear bomb I thought, was invented to defend? And yet it is now pretty much agreed by the international community that other nation states should not have that capability of defence?
  It seems to me that the same argument could be used against (not that I would) all types of gun being in the hands of anyone in case the technology fell into the wrong hands.
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 22, 2013

  Keep up the good work!
  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-texas-college-campus-reports-191439016.html
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 22, 2013

  [quote]Keep up the good work!
  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-texas-college-campus-reports-191439016.html
  [/quote]
  
  What is your point Soupie?  Did you read the second to the last line?  here it is in case you missed it:  "According to the school's website, Lone Star College prohibits "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly" setting foot on school property with a firearm."
  Once again, another Gun Free Zone where a bad guy carries a gun and shoots people with no one to defend themselves!  They make it sound like a shootout as if two people with guns were involved but the story says just "A Handgun" was involved!  Beyond that we know nothing about the circumstances so whatever you are trying to prove means nothing!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 22, 2013

  I know that little things like facts and statistics are abhorrent to gun lovers, but if you just look at the per capita homicides by guns, you will clearly find that the U.S. is so wildly beyond any other country with tighter forms of gun control.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 23, 2013

  [quote]I know that little things like facts and statistics are abhorrent to gun lovers, but if you just look at the per capita homicides by guns, you will clearly find that the U.S. is so wildly beyond any other country with tighter forms of gun control.[/quote]Soupie, you believe what statistics you want to believe!  I don't expect you to buy or borrow this book but if you like statistics, then I recommend John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"  I try to be respectful of people's opinion but yours is plain wrong as with most of your posts!  You have no clue about statistics and like everyone on the left of this issue, you are leaving out all key components of the statistical argument.  People like you leave out that the high gun crime rates are highest in states and cities that have the strictest gun control (Chicago over 450 deaths with firearms last year and guns are banned there)  DC and Chicago have the strictest gun control in the entire US and also the highest crime rates.  You on the left of this issue also fail to consider that nationwide, our firearm ownership rate is higher than almost every other nation in the world (possibly the highest) so if you compare the rates to amounts of guns and gun ownership to any other country, the rates are very low!  Crimes are based on rates not actual numbers.  So your so called "Facts" are just left wing talking points that have no basis in real facts!  I dare you to read that book, but we all know you won't and continue to spout off your BS on here just because you like to disagree with NIM even through he is spot on!
  There is no room for emotion in this argument because like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing standing in between Liberty and Tyranny in this country!  At this point it's a very thin line too, sadly there are too many people that take the freedom for granted and keep spouting off their mouths as if the 1st Amendment won't fall with the 2nd if we, as Americans, allow it to happen!  Freedom is NOT Free people, and it's time people wake up and stop living in progressive la-la land!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 23, 2013

  Oh gosh, I will have to flag that again.  Because it's a repeated lie.  Keep trying.

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  macnude

  Jan 23, 2013

  It appears that many feel that the government is out to relieve us of our legal firearms. Fact, only Washington DC and the State of Illinois have no provision for a Concealed Weapon Permit (CWP). The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Illinois must make such a provision. It seems that the Court is protecting our 2nd Amendment right.
  
  It is noted that the two areas with no provision for a CWP are among areas which have the highest rates of violent crime.
  
  I'm sure that some are paranoid enough to believe that the issuance of a CWP provides the government with a data base so they may come to our home and remove our legal weapons. If you belive this, hide out in the bunker with your fully automatic weapon.
  
  While gun laws vary from state, here in SC, fingerprints must be submitted to the SC Law Enforcement Division along with certification that one has completed a course of training which includes gun laws, firearm safety and qualification on a firing range. The goal of the background check and training is to assure that the CWP be issued to responsible, trained gun owners.
  
  I am legally armed and dangerous only to someone who would threaten my life. I have no desire to protect myself with a firearm but should the need arise, I am prepared.
  
  Instead of spending time decrying infringement of rights on the internet, exercise the right to be legally armed, get your CWP and carry your weapon. The more "good guys and gals" that are legally armed, the safer we all will be.
  
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• BO

  

  Bob

  Jan 23, 2013

  I have not seen too much talk about smart guns. I advocate the design that uses an implanted RFID that is "injected" under the skin of the owner. The gun is coded to only fire when held by the hand with the implant. This design would have prevented the Newton incident.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun
  
  As an eighth grader in a gun club I attained the ranks of Pro Marksman, Marksman, Marksman First Class, Sharpshooter and 4 bars. These ranks included safety training. The book portion was about 80% of the training.
  
  Bob
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 24, 2013

  [quote]I have not seen too much talk about smart guns. I advocate the design that uses an implanted RFID that is "injected" under the skin of the owner. The gun is coded to only fire when held by the hand with the implant. This design would have prevented the Newton incident.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun
  
  As an eighth grader in a gun club I attained the ranks of Pro Marksman, Marksman, Marksman First Class, Sharpshooter and 4 bars. These ranks included safety training. The book portion was about 80% of the training.
  
  Bob
  [/quote]"Smartgun" Technology is nothing new!  But it is and always will be a complete failure!  There are no upside to it at all because one thing that must happen with a firearm when it's needed is that it must work every time!  If the owner doesn't do the basics on cleaning and lubing properly then that is his own responsibility on the same token, if someone chooses to purchase a so called "Smart Gun" then that is also there responsibility, but if a government starts requiring it, there is just too much that can go wrong!  I have owned "smart" safes with fingerprint technology for example and it fails to open more than it opens which could mean the difference of life or death.  Same goes with any "smart gun" technology!  While all cool and neat, it's won't be effective when you need it most!
  Macnude, I understand where you are coming from on the CWP but lets take Vermont as an example, there is no permit needed to carry a firearm/handgun in that state and it has one of the lowest, if not the lowest crime rate in the country.  In all aspects of our country, permits are equal to a government giving you permission to do something!  By allowing states to issue permits, "We the People" are giving our states permission to treat a RIGHT as a privilege which is also giving them permission to take it away!  This is the problem with the permit process and yes, we are already seeing states publish names and addresses of permit holders which is NOT indicative of a Free Country!  Just imagine if the State or Federal government started requiring "Free Speech" or Religious permits! If we allow them to take away the 2nd Amendment or gut it so to speak, those other permits I spoke of might just become a reality!  As it is, this president doesn't like when people protest his word already!
  NIM, Yes, you are right!  A Troll is He!
  
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Jan 24, 2013

  [quote]Forgive me FF, if i consider you and NiMA trolls as well.  It's all about perspective, isn't it?[/quote][img src="http://defineinsanity.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/funny-cat-laughing.jpg">

  ReactReply