April 20, 201016 yr "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344 Jefferson was right on the money...over 200 years ago. I'll ask again: How does the right to bear arms, today, protect our form of government?
April 20, 201016 yr Author Then according to how the Constitution was written, permits are not allowed. As a permit would be an attempt to infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms. Yes it does. In the 10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since the constitution does not give the FEDERAL (United States above)government the power to require permits it is up to the states (or the people) to decide. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
April 20, 201016 yr Jefferson was right on the money...over 200 years ago. I'll ask again: How does the right to bear arms, today, protect our form of government? How does it not?
April 20, 201016 yr Author 1. Do you have examples where this happened in other countries? 2. Other countries are not the US. Our representatives value keeping their power and jobs in DC and they know they would never get re-elected if they banned guns. Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia just to name a few. We've already had gun bans in this country and Obama already stated he'd like to ban others.
April 20, 201016 yr Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia just to name a few. We've already had gun bans in this country and Obama already stated he'd like to ban others. That is why he opened up the national parks to open carry.
April 20, 201016 yr How does it not? As an individual, I don't think that I can fight off the government from intruding into my personal affairs by owning a gun. Many people are worried that the government is getting "too involved" in our lives. That's another debate, but let's use health care reform as an example. How does the right to own a gun affect health care reform at all? How does owning a gun protect you from governmental intrusions? Most of the protection that the U.S. citizens need is not physical protection. As a result, the right to bear arms does not enable the citizens of the United States to be "protected from their government." That'd be my answer. Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia just to name a few. We've already had gun bans in this country and Obama already stated he'd like to ban others. President Obama would like to ban other what? I'm confused as to what "others" means.
April 20, 201016 yr Author President Obama would like to ban other what? I'm confused as to what "others" means.Flying elephants. GUNS. :lol:
April 20, 201016 yr Author That is why he opened up the national parks to open carry.Oh please, he bowed to a little political pressure on a subject he figured would give him a little trust in the gun world. I, however, haven't forgotten any of this about Obama: He voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. He wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. He voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. He has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership. He supported local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. He voted for the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense in the cities that had local gun bans. He supports gun owner licensing and gun registration. He refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case. He opposes Right to Carry laws. (Which is why the Parks CC was simply political) He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.” He supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America. He voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them. He voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military. He favors a ban on standard capacity magazines. He supports mandatory micro-stamping. He supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers. He supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions. He supports a ban on inexpensive handguns. He supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment. If he gets a second term, guns will be in his sights again.
April 20, 201016 yr REALLY - What century are you guys living in. this is rediculous. It is not ridiculous. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by our founding fathers. Sorry if you like part of the Constitution ace and not others, but it applies in 2010 the same as it applied in 1789.
April 20, 201016 yr He is so anti-gun, yet he would bow to politcal pressure to allow them to be carried in American parks, but he would not bow to political pressure to not pass a health care bill. So he is more pro-health care than he is anti-gun. Silly scaredy-cat stuff.
April 20, 201016 yr He is so anti-gun, yet he would bow to politcal pressure to allow them to be carried in American parks, but he would not bow to political pressure to not pass a health care bill. So he is more pro-health care than he is anti-gun. Silly scaredy-cat stuff. I would say that he is more pro health care than anti-gun, but he is anti gun. Given his own choice, citizens would not own handguns or assault weapons. I do not understand scaredy-cat stuff. Is this some sort of logical argument, or is it claiming that any of RTS statements were false?:popcorn:
April 20, 201016 yr I would say that he is more pro health care than anti-gun, but he is anti gun. Given his own choice, citizens would not own handguns or assault weapons. I do not understand scaredy-cat stuff. Is this some sort of logical argument, or is it claiming that any of RTS statements were false?:popcorn: Frankly, if given my choice, citizens would not own assault weapons. But, then, that's just me. I'm OK with hand guns and rifles/shotgun type things. But, I simply don't see the need for any military type weapons in any citizen's hands.
April 20, 201016 yr Frankly, if given my choice, citizens would not own assault weapons. But, then, that's just me. I'm OK with hand guns and rifles/shotgun type things. But, I simply don't see the need for any military type weapons in any citizen's hands. :thumb: I feel the same way.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.