President Obama: 2nd Amendment is Constitutional Right.

[Decoy of Fenris]

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

Just because it needs to be said again and again and again, because some people just can't comprehend it; RKBA is a constitutional right, and our Democratic President agrees.


ON EDIT: The quote itself is from an Official, just to avoid any picking of nits. However, an administration official (in my mind) is just as good, unless the President cares to intervene and contradict.

[LP2K12]

1. What's sad is...

My Republican, life-long NRA, gun loving father still wont believe that our POTUS said this.

Glad he didn't vote.

I love my guns and my president.

[Decoy of Fenris]

2. Just so you and your father know, President Obama also said this:

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

A stance I agree with, for the most part, providing government doesn't overstep too much.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. notice: He said Criminals NOT PreCriminals are whatever is the term some Anti-2Aers have been using.

He said CRIMINALS

[glacierbay]

14. And don't forget those pesky hidden criminals.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. Obama understands the Constitution and well knows that Pro-2Aers voted for him.

We helped elect him and we damn sure helped re-elect him. 2A is the least of my concerns at this point in time.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Barak Obama, Oct 16, 2012.

Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-17/the-obama-romney-assault-weapons-duel

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. let him see. he will be looking for a long time. betcha.

the term "assault weapon" will be REdefined.

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. That's irrelevant to this point.

The point is that the President knows the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT. I think we all know that certain civil liberties or rights can be abridged, but it is worth pointing out that Obama knows that the 2nd is a right, not a privilege, not a public safety issue, but a right.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. ah, throw the poor guy a bone.

feel kind of sorry for him. kind of.

[glacierbay]

15. Yep

the dreams of more gun control are going down in flames.

[hack89]

45. He had to toss a bone to a vocal gun controllers

we understand why he had to say it. But we also notice how an AWB was irrelevant to the campaign.

With repukes in charge of the House and Harry Reid running the Senate there will never be a vote on an AWB.

[Remmah2]

6. The impact I could see is on import firearms/ammo.

Even if they arrive as parts kits.

The up side is an increase in collectors value and an increased market share for domestic manufacturers.

It may be wild speculation but we can only hope for the best.

[AlGoreRhythms]

7. He could go on BillO's show

and say that verbatim and they still wouldn't believe he said it.

[Renew Deal]

10. Obama didn't say that

Someone from his administration did. But it counts just as much unless Obama says otherwise.

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. True: It was an administration official.

I do tend to associate the president with his officials, because that's kind of the official's whole point. You're right though, and I will probably edit that into the OP.

[glacierbay]

11. This ought to really piss of the Brady org.

the VPC, MAIG, they thought they had a kindred spirit in the WH, guess they were wrong.
Good for Pres. Obama.

[Loudly]

16. A constitutional right on what basis? To go to war with your government?

Been there and done that. It was called the American Civil War. Never again.

There is no such "right."

[glacierbay]

17. Awwwww

what's the matter? Pres. Obama didn't turn out to be the grabber you thought he would be? He just doesn't seem to Share(s) the same goal as you do, matter of fact, he's more United with our side of the issue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. Well said, gb

Keep socking that puppet every time they show up...

[Decoy of Fenris]

18. Based on, ya know, the constitution.

You know, piece of paper, makes minorities equal, lets women vote, due process, all that other fun stuff. I know Controllers like to act like it doesn't exist, but it kinda does.

The "Right" is enumerated, not given, in the constitution. Whether you -think- it is or isn't a "right" is irrelevant, and in the eyes of the government, your opinion (what you think) means exactly fuckall: To this government and the current administration, the Right to Bear Arms as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is, in fact, a right. I'll take that over some random stranger on the net any day of the week.

[Loudly]

21. What hooey.

A constitutional "right" to the means of conveniently denying your fellow citizens all their genuine rights?

Suffers from a fatal inconsistency in logic.

[glacierbay]

22. You can quit beating that horse Shares.

It's been dead for a while now.

[Decoy of Fenris]

23. Yup, pretty much.

Thankfully, for all the hubub you may raise and all the "Hooey" you declare, there's nothing you can do about it because... Ya know... "constitutional right" and whatnot. Good to know you're against the current administration, though. Doesn't really surprise me though; most Anti-Choicers are pretty much against liberal policies.

[PavePusher]

69. What? Why do you hate the First Amendment? And the Twenty-Fourth? n/t

[glacierbay]

24. +1000000

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Hey there Shares...

Last edited Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The President was a professor of constitutional law, what qualification do you or your prior incarnation, Shares United, have?

[Glaug-Eldare]

33. I shall refer to our Declaration of Rights

Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

People have a natural right to choose their own form of government, amend their present government, separate from an undesired government, or resist, with violence, a coercive government. It is a dangerous state which seeks to separate the people from the necessary tools of resistance. I do not recognize the validity of any court judgement, treaty, law, or philosophy which defines me and my neighbors as subjects, without the right to chart our own course. Lincoln destroyed our civil liberty during that war because he had greater resources -- not because he had a right to.

[Loudly]

34. Very good. This can't be repeated often enough.

The only basis for claiming a "right" of access to the means of conveniently killing Americans is for the purpose of destroying the Union.

Doesn't sound very wholesome, now does it.

Also quite irrelevant in a post-Appomattox world.

[Decoy of Fenris]

35. Uh... You may want to read that again, friend.

That particular quote is stating the reason behind the ability of the people to rise in armed resistance against a corrupt or tyrannical rule, establishing that non-violent resistance is, to quote, "Absurd". The passage only further supports the 2nd Amendment as a right of the people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. No fair citing facts to Shares United, now known as Loudly

[Loudly]

38. Yes that's it exactly. You want the option of staging armed rebellion against the United States.

For your own subjective reasons. For whatever you care to identify as sufficient tyranny. Like abolition of slavery.

Love it. Such a compelling argument when innocents carry on dying from the effortless caprice of gunmen with personal grievances.

Proclaim it with full throated clarity.

Don't try to disguise it as a crime fighting measure.

Serve it straight up and let sensible people see your naked meaning.

Help them decide whether any such pretend right can possibly co-exist with genuine rights.

[Decoy of Fenris]

41. You want to play? Let's play.

I want the option of staging armed rebellion against a corrupt and tyrannical United States government, if the state of said government becomes dire enough, severe enough, abusive enough and imminent enough to be considered an active threat to the continued well being of myself, my family and my friends, and of the people I care about. If the government comes to take Jews or Gays or Blacks or Women or anyone -else- away without due process or cause, I want the option to protect them. It disturbs me beyond belief that you -don't-, and would quietly sit and watch as your friends and family are rounded up for no reason.

You want to talk Civil War? During the civil war, the majority of all firearms were acquired from Europe, numbering around three quarter of a million, outnumbering both the North and the South overall firearms by 150%. Likewise, after the war began and escalated, American arms manufacturers upped annual production a -thousand- percent to maintain the Union's firearms, while the South ended up purchasing close to 600,000 firearms, over DOUBLE their starting amount of rifles; home-owned firearms played little role in the Civil War, which you'd know if you bothered to look up a damned thing.

Personally? I value firearms for their historical value as well as their actual value, and I enjoy firing them for the visceral thrill of explosions and the skill required to hit a target actively. I have never purchased a gun for defense, and I don't plan to (I don't much like handguns.)

You want the naked truth? I support the rights of people to buy what they want, when they want. A woman wants an abortion? Sure. A man wants a gun? Sure. The moral and irrational objection to -both- of those controversial topics is "They kill people". In my mind, if you try to take the ability to purchase a weapon away from anyone, you are every bit as Anti-Choice as the "pro-life" camp; You want to deny rights based on an arbitrary and irrational fear of a falsely extrapolated result.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and you're twisting in the wind. Every point you've made has been wrong, and your moral objections stomp directly on rights as outlined by both the Constitution of the United States and the Democratic administration currently holding office. You're touting an extreme-right Conservative viewpoint of denial of civil liberties, and you're doing so irrationally enough so as to make -real- policy change on gun control impossible by making your side look like a bunch of loons on par with any far-right wingnut.

Good day to you, sir. I wait eagerly for a coherent response to my post, but I'd bet good money that you're too afraid to do so. Knowledge is power, mate: You -really- need to arm yourself. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

[Loudly]

44. Paragraph by paragraph rebuttal.

Why the theoretical concern about your government rounding people up? Access to guns and ammo is reaping the actual deaths and wounding of minorities and women every day, in a perfectly demonstrable way. You seem to think it's worth it to them to suffer that damage in order to "protect" them from some very vague, unlikely threat. Armed hate groups are as big "gun rights" supporters as you are.

If home-owned weapons aren't the basis for armed rebellion, then what are we arguing about? What is 2A jurisprudence all about? If you agree that military style weapons stored at an armory is the full extent of what the 2A ever referred to, then why persist in the delusion that you have a "right" to own a gun?

I can appreciate having an affinity for a hobby. But you ought to concede that America's political indulgence of your hobby does not and can never rise to the level of a "right." Collectors of child pornography had a hobby too, until public policy identified it as sufficiently harmful to cease to tolerate. We did so despite the 1A and with extreme prejudice once we mustered the will to shut it down.

Don't equate freedom with empowerment to conveniently kill and wound. A gunshot victim does not have any say in the matter, except in the case of suicide, which guns and ammo clearly enable.

If I am so wrong and so conservative in the worst sense of the word, why is it you who sounds just like the posters over at FR on this issue? To them, nothing is more important than preserving their access to guns and ammo. To them, no degree of suffering or cost to society can possibly justify curtailing it. Yeah, sorry. You sound just like them.

Thanks, that was enjoyable. Damned frustrating though.

[PavePusher]

70. "Why the theoretical concern about your government rounding people up?"

Holy fucking shit. Are you that Ignorant, Arrogant, bat-shit Insane, or just plain old garden-variety fucking Stupid?

19th Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal

20th Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

http://www.google.com/search?q=Japanese+internment&hl=en&tbo=u&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS432&biw=1280&bih=579&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=jX-hUJycPOWg2AXh3YGICw&ved=0CDYQsAQ


If it can happen once, it can happen again. Oh, wait....

21rst Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

http://www.laprogressive.com/change/#sthash.s0IYTThj.dpbs

http://soundvision.com/info/muslims/internment.asp

http://duanegraham.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/muslim-internment/


Lesser known examples:

U.S. Civil War:
http://ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p137_Weber.html (Granted, these camps mainly held active combatants; nevertheless, many civilians ended up in them as well.)

WWI:
http://www.visitmadisoncounty.com/who-we-are/town-of-hot-springs/the-german-village-wwi-internment-camp/

Post-WWI:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=19210602_222_0_Betwee709978&PrintComments=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

More WWII info here:
http://www.issuesandalibis.org/campsa.html (Warning: it's a CT site, but the history events are factual.)


Thanks, that was enjoyable. Damned frustrating though. In-fucking-deed.

[Decoy of Fenris]

89. And an appropriate response.

Firstly, sorry it took so long; work has been a nightmare, but I've been getting -plenty- of overtime. Not much sleep, but more money isn't a bad thing. I rarely leave a post unattended for that long, and for that, I apologize.


Now, on to content.

Paragraph 1.)

You keep bringing up protection in regards to gun control. As I've stated before, I do not purchase firearms for protection, nor do I know anyone in my immediate group of friends who does; we simply enjoy firearms, both for personal enjoyment as well as for market value and collector's worth. In regards to concern about a hypothetical government rounding people up, my actual concern for that is about on par with that of the Zombiepocalypse; will probably never happen, but I would rather be prepared than not. More importantly, what we're talking about isn't necessarily a concern that the threat is imminent or even potentially impending. What I am genuinely concerned with is the -ability- of a person to maintain a resistance of any kind to a potentially dire threat of any variety. Do I believe that I will need a firearm to protect myself? Honestly, probably not. However, both the option and the ability to arm myself, -if- the need arises, is what I fight to defend in regards to gun control. To be perfectly honest, when it comes down to people dying of firearms, I am ambivalent. People die to thousands of causes. Every day, 100,000+ people die. If I were to think that the hundred or so people dying to firearms were any more important than the other hundred thousand, I would not be able to justify it to myself. Who am I to judge who should or shouldn't die of any given cause, simply by virtue of -how- they died without relation to appropriate cause and effect on a case by case basis, especially when pertaining to rights (or even perceived rights) of an entire demographic? To think otherwise is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable to any means outside those thoughts of a true sociopath.


Paragraphs 2 and 3.)

My personal belief in the right to own a firearm, and it is a right regardless of your quotation marks, is simply based on the constitution, as well as my belief in personal responsibility, freedom, and choice. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment being lightly regulated because, as with all things, bad people will do bad things. They will poison, they will stab, they will bludgeon their spouse to death with a golf trophy; the -weapon- does not matter. The solution is not in the revocation of every weapon they could potentially use; indeed, said removal has proven fruitless on numerous occasions (See Scotland, Washington DC, Russia, et cetera). Instead, the solution (and where I devote most of my non-firearm-related political influence) is in improving the social quality and makeup that lead to crime, regardless of the weapons driving it. There will always be impulse-killings so long as humans have emotion, that much is certain. However, in areas where social and cultural development are increasing or already sustain natural highs (Norway, for instance), the firearm is seen less as a solution to a problem and is appreciated more for what it is: A tool capable of ending a human being's life. While we can never eliminate crime, we can attempt to mitigate it's spread and propagation through social engineering and improving the quality of life as well as the -appreciation- of life, both one's own and that of others.

I believe your attempt to liken firearms to child pornography is flawed in two simple, massive ways: CP is not protected by the constitution, and CP, unlike firearms, is entirely and completely negative in every regard: The victimization of an unprotected human being, potential marketting of said being, emotional trauma if the child is abused, physical and psychological destruction and late-term psychological ramifications that may or may not lead to destructive behavior. It is directly, and -always-, harmful. A more correct analogue to firearms would be that every bullet kills; every shot fired hits; no firearms are used for target practice or hunting. To be blunt, I'm sorry, but your analogy is hideously and fatally flawed in all but the most superficial ways.


Paragraph 4.)

I am doing nothing of the sort. Freedom is the ability to do something, nothing more or less. I want the freedom to purchase a firearm; there is no intent nor desire to "conveniently kill and wound." I am perfectly capable of doing that more efficiently with my bare hands (Shodan of Okinawan Goju Ryu ).


Paragraph 5.)

Because, once in a while, the Freepwits may get something right. They are correct in concept, and in fact they're quite liberal; they just don't understand -why- they're right. As I like to say, they're right, but for all the wrong reasons; they want their guns because damnit, they want their guns and "Becauz fuk u dats why". I want the -ability- to have guns.

Let me use your own analogy against you. I want a child; I have the ability, with my fiancee, to make a child. What I do with that child, however... Like make child porn... is completely independent of the child itself. In regards to guns, the -action- of killing someone is reprehensible. Don't just state "Guns are evil", say "Murdering another human being is evil" and take steps to stop that action rather than prohibiting access to an item to the rest of the population.

[PavePusher]

93. Much more diplomatic than my response....

but sometimes, I feel the need to reply to idiocy in a blunter manner.

I commend you, sir/madam.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Pretty silly talk from you Shares

You have no idea who most of us are or what our agendas and desires are. All you can do wave your hands and shout your own demented visions without a single shred of proof. Do you want yet another pizza?

[Glaug-Eldare]

36. Only basis? No.

But it is an important one, and the excerpts are relevant to your claim that the victory of Lincoln's army proved anything besides its strength. Natural rights have no meaning without the ability to enforce them, or at least try, and I am of the opinion that self-government is a natural right. Considering the depredations we've suffered in the past, I am very protective of the ability to defend myself and my home state.

Other, non-military reasons to protect the right to arms are for hunting, self-defense, recreation, and competition.

[Eleanors38]

50. Wrong. It is a right. And here is a liberal who agreed with that:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible"

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D) Minn.
"Know Your Lawmakers" Guns (magazine), February, 1960, p. 4.

NOTE: "...right of the citizens to keep and bear arms" and "...one more guarantee against arbitrary government..."

This is a true liberal and progressive speaking.

[former-republican]

20. Some hurt feelings in his thread

[VPStoltz]

25. Oh, my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!

I feel like I just fell into a pit of left-over whatever it was the other guys have been drinking.
A RIGHT?
Like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
A GUN!!!
Really?
Someone has got to know where this is quoted in the bible, right?

[Decoy of Fenris]

26. And if I find that guns make me happy?

What right do you have to stop that? None. Thankfully, this administration agrees.

[glacierbay]

28. Funny how the controllers become more and more

hysterical as they realize that their dream of more gun controls laws are circling the drain of history.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Your right to happiness is not unconditional.

If, for example, you find your path to happiness in driving 120mph on public roads, your enjoyment can be curtailed.

The administration does not agree with your belief in 2a absolutism. That was made clear up thread.

[beevul]

57. "2a absolutism" - Dishonesty in semantic redefinition isn't helping your cause.

Who here in the guns forum actually engages in "2a absolutism", warren?

I mean, we have sharesunited loudly on YOUR side of the issue that thinks the second amendment protects no right at all, so I guess he represents "2a absolutism" on the antigun side, but what about the pro-gun side? Can you show some posts by people you consider to be 2A absolutists on the pro gun side here at DU, that actually state publicly that ALL gun laws should be repealed? Or is it that you mix the term "2a absolutism" in a dishonest way with relativism, and use it to refer to anyone that opposes the further restrictions you wish to see enacted?


Link some posts, or admit its the fraudulent relative definition of the phrase that just about everyone here knows it is.

(not that I'm going to hold my breath)

[Glaug-Eldare]

58. I don't think I've ever gotten a serious answer

when I've asked prohibitionists for an example of a law that would have violated the 2nd Amendment in both 1792 and 2012. Apparently it's a Constitutional amendment that doesn't actually protect anything at all!

EDIT: The closest I've gotten is Hoyt explaining that it prevents Congress from disarming the state militia. Immediately after, he explained that, despite the MD statute including me in the militia, 2A protections don't apply to me. I guess the state militia can't be disarmed, but the state isn't empowered to regulate it, either.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. I've already provided the evidence down thread. You can exhale.

It is amazing how a group of 2a absolutists, who through thread after thread after thread have never found any proposal for gun regulation reasonable, are so shy of being labeled 2a absolutists. Whatever. You all should be proud of the label, not allergic to it.

[beevul]

67. You provided nothing, and called it evidence.

You said:

"...your belief in 2a absolutism" when replying to glacierbay. Not only were you replying to him/her, but you were also referring to him/her.

You provided no evidence of any "absolutism" on the part of that poster what.so.ever.

So it was just a baseless mischaracterization of that posters views, a blatantly deliberate misrepresentation of his position, by you.

I am shocked beyond belief.

On top of that, you claim that "When it comes to actual weapons that qualify under the 2nd amendment, this forum is full of people who generally will not admit that any regulation is permitted, except perhaps (and then grudgingly) the existing limits on full auto weapons."

Those are your words. Nothing taken out of context and nothing misquoted.

Your claim, that one.

In support of it, you post a single example that may be applicable, and try to pass it off as if it supports the notion that this forum is full of people that "generally will not admit that any regulation is permitted, except perhaps (and then grudgingly) the existing limits on full auto weapons."

Do you really think nobody can see this?

Do you really think such behavior wins people over to your side of the issue?

Aw heck...

Its what you anti-gunners have been doing for ten plus years, and its been working so well, why stop now, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. The gun control false consensus is falling apart, and they're not taking it well at all...

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=81761

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do.[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a 'false consensus'. This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem. The need to be "normal" and fit in with other people is underlined by a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment...

...The false-consensus effect is not necessarily restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority. The false-consensus effect is also evidenced when people overestimate the extent of their particular belief is correlated with the belief of others. Thus, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.

This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way.[2] There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X

The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes

Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House

Stanford University

Abstract

Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes

[4th law of robotics]

134. Indeed, happiness is not guaranteed

for instance if happiness to you involves stripping others of their constitutionally protected rights, tough.

[glacierbay]

27. What part of what he posted do you not understand?

As in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as in the 2nd Amendmend to the Constitution.
So, what was the point of your post?

[hack89]

51. What kind of rights do you think the Bill of Rights refers to? nt

[PavePusher]

71. "in the bible"?

The bible has not one fucking thing to do with my Constitutional Rights. And that's where my Right to "keep and bear arms" is enumerated.

[bowens43]

29. Constitutional right? Yes...

individual right? Absolutely not. It's spelled out clearly in the Constitution. It is right with in the construct of a WELL REGULATED militia.

[glacierbay]

31. Sorry dude

but that's already been settled. Deal with it.

[Decoy of Fenris]

32. Uh, well, you're wrong.

But if you're that ignorant on the topic, might I suggest you scroll down and look for one of my OPs on the structure of the 2nd amendment in period-piece writing? In said OP, I prove your point wrong, then if I remember correctly, I may have mocked people who believed otherwise, because it's laughably simple to anyone who does even the tiniest amount of research. However, if you'd like, I'll do your research again for you; I've got about an hour, and I do love a challenge.

[PavePusher]

72. Explain how your semantic construct works, using basic rules of grammar. I bet you can't. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

135. Could you list the other collective rights guaranteed in the constitution?

Rather than individual rights or restrictions on what the federal government may do to citizens.

[Thinkingabout]

30. It could be gun owner suppression like voter suppression.

When any group or person attempts to supress or ban our amendments then it open all of them up for discussion. The republicans are trying hard to supress citizens from voting, gun owners watch out, it will not stop at only one, don't like having your guns taken away, neither should you want to take away voting rights. And besides, voting machines does not kill like errant gun owners do.

[ellisonz]

39. ...

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

- Heller v. DC

[Warren Stupidity]

46. your examples are all examples of weapons that cannot be 'borne'.

As in carried by a person. When it comes to actual weapons that qualify under the 2nd amendment, this forum is full of people who generally will not admit that any regulation is permitted, except perhaps (and then grudgingly) the existing limits on full auto weapons.

This forum is full of 2A absolutists, not only absolutists, but expansionists fully supporting legislation such as SYG that are clearly not party of the 2A at all.

But you knew that.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. "I've never seen that."

Then you aren't looking, or refuse to see.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Logically, if you could post a link to where any "responsible person has ever seriously argued that

the Second Amendment right is unlimited," wouldn't you do so?

Also, if you could post a quote from any responsible person on this board who has "ever seriously argued that the Second Amendment right is unlimited," wouldn't you do so as well?

What I see is your inability to post a link and post a quote from someone on this board to support your position.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Here you go.

Took all of about three minutes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117281983#post24

[Warren Stupidity]

59. "it's not clear whether he was being serious or not. "

Not unexpectedly, any evidence I provide here to substantiate my assertion that 2a absolutism is commonplace here is rejected. The link I provided substantiates my claim.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. That's because your 'evidence' is bullshit.

But you knew that.

[Decoy of Fenris]

42. As said above,

I have not, in my experience here on DU or in the real world, ever had someone state that they have the right to complete and utter access to any military or other firearm-related merchandise. Strawman, since you have no actual argument.

[jody]

54. Wrong! RKBA is one of our unalienable/inalienable rights and as SCOTUS said

SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. {page 19}

Government can infringe upon all unalienable/inalienable rights but never to the point of banning that right.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

61. That is What the Party Platform Says Along with an AWB

.

[oneshooter]

62. Since you want a AWB, what "assault weapons" would you ban? And why?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. The Ones the Really Smart People Want to Ban

LOL.

[gejohnston]

64. those are already banned or simply not sold

because there is no market for them.
In California, and the latest bill by McCarthey this is an "assault weapon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP
I would not describe them as smart people.

[oneshooter]

68. So you have no idea what you are supporting?

Ignorance of the matter being spoke of is a very good excuse for silence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Nah

Just smart enough not to take your bait.

I'll support any AWB ban. I'll even let you help define which ones are to be added to the list, in addition to the ones they have added.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Well then, we'll just have to keep doing what we've been doing all along-

Slowly but steadily dismantling the restrictions people like you have emplaced over the years....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. Right

Got it.

You'll keep fighting the Democratic Party.

[Decoy of Fenris]

90. Erm... About that.

Democratic Administration: 2nd Amendment is a right.

Going against -that- is the anti-Democratic stance and going against the party. Just saying.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

101. Not Even Close

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

[gejohnston]

104. you are missing a couple of things

We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms.

Great, but part of of that open and honest conversation, if it is to be open and honest is pointing out the absurdity and pitfalls of this part
-

like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

of course there is the thought stopping and stupefying "commonsense" adjective. Whenever I see the word, I am reminded of an Albert Einstein quote "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. I quoted the Entire Text in Entirety and Support 100% as is.

I quoted the Entire Text in Entirety and Support 100% as is.

You don't.

As for Einstein:

Albert Einstein's famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By the Einstein standard, I judge Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, to be insane. He said in the aftermath of the Aurora massacre about large ammunition clips, "There are magazines -- 30-round magazines -- that are just common all over the place, and you simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals that want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedoms."

-Norman Ornstein

Source- http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/23/where-is-the-leadership-on-gun-control/we-need-brave-leaders-to-stand-up-to-gun-owners

Common Sense!

[gejohnston]

121. who cares?

what does Johnson say that is either insane, or inaccurate? Gangs in Canada use such magazines, where they have been banned for years.
I stand by his definition of common sense. Since there is no evidence of any gun law affecting murder or crime rates, I would define Bloomburg as insane.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Other than the Use Of Guns Results in Murder and Crime

.

[gejohnston]

123. so why does USVI,

Brazil, Mexico, all have astronomical murder rates? Why didn't UK or Canadian crime and murder rates drop after passing their various gun laws? The only thing that changed was the number of suicide by gun, but not the number of suicides.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. I Make No Claim to Know

...but I'm sure you will make an argument it is somehow related to supporting your position.

[gejohnston]

127. only that it has nothing to do with laxer gun laws

since they have stricter gun laws, stricter than much of Europe, and makes us look like Japan. Come to think of it, DC has stricter gun laws than most of Europe.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. You seem to forget what the *leader* of the Democratic Party said

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Piss and moan all you want, but there it is. While the Prez and I disagree on suitable limits, my position
is closer to his than yours...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. See Post 101

Nothing in your post counters what I said in Post 101

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. You didn't 'say' anything, you simply parroted the platform.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. And Once Again

Nothing you said in that one post conflicts what I believe to be true or what is in the Party Platform.

The President's position, including his support for an AWB mentionned in the debates, doesn't conflict with the party platform and neither has anything I said. You want to 'parrot', as you accuse me, the GOP party line regarding guns or you want to advocate changing for the 2016 Democratic Platform......go ahead.

But for now, the President, the Platform and I are in agreement on guns. You are not.

[oneshooter]

120. So you willingly admit that you support laws that you know nothing about.

Just that you like the sound of it.

Typical of gun banners, ignorant and proud of it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. Right

Got it-- you think I'm stupid, ignorant and proud of it....not just wrong. Laughing at what you think is deductive 'reasoning.'

I'll merely repeat what I said that prompted your response to remind you what I said.

Just smart enough not to take your bait. I'll support any AWB ban. I'll even let you help define which ones are to be added to the list, in addition to the ones they have added.

[graham4anything]

77. why do I bother? "and keep the guns in the house." Period. End of discussion.

get rid of ALL guns outside the home.

NO carrying anywhere.

and freak the big guns. I mean ALL guns, big, little, small, extra large, little bitty ones.

NO guns outside the home.

and the right to keep a gun (IN THE HOME) has a caveat-

NOWHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BULLETS.
BAN THEM. 100% BAN going forward.

and get rid of the LEGAL GUNS.

cuz its the legal guns OUTSIDE the home that cause ALL guns to be in the street.
Until the last legal gun is forbidden outside, one cannot clean up the streets

and support Mayor Mike Bloomberg's new pac to deal with the issue of guns.

and again

BAN BULLETS. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWNING BULLETS

then keep your stinking guns in your home, where they would be allowed

(so long as you have a sign on the front of your property warning anyone that a gun is inside, and allow people FREE CHOICE to enter or not your home.

again, why do I bother.
It's like trying to convince a tea party/libertarian person that the Civil War was won by the north and that the wild wild west is dead and won't ever come back.

[Union Scribe]

78. I don't know why you bother, either.

Between the rambling, contradictory, emotive, nonsensical shouting and the support for a right-wing piece of shit like Bloomberg, nothing you just posted was worth reading.

[graham4anything]

79. Bloomberg backed Obama. He is a LIBERAL democrat from Mass in case you didn't know

and let me ask you- why read me then. Place me on ignore, along with anyone who goes
against the NRA and guns.

you do have a choice.

so do I.

Your (supposed) right to a gun stops when you take it outside.

and a new court( hopefully one stocked with good people like Eric Holder and in 2017, Barack Obama himself) will be giving new meanings to bad laws like corporate personhood.


and YOUR version of law does not include bullets.

oops, truth gets in the way of the NRA

And I quite obviously know why you hate My Meek Mayor Mike.
Because he has the money to one up the NRA any day.

so you may have your gun, I give you permission.
Long as ya leave it in your home, or have it locked up in a shooting gallery, like people leave their sporty bowling shoes and balls when they bowl.

I for one don't carry my bowling ball into a bar or restaurant or when seeing the Dark Knight like lovers of their pieces carry their guns into public places.

and Mayor Mike helped Obama to win in 2012 with his mega endorsement(one of only 2 endorsements that mattered this year, the other being General Powell who also backed Obama.)

btw, I do NOT support Zimmerman, like the NRA and gun lovers do.
Sorry, shooting someone unarmed, coward style miles away from Zimmy's home is not protecting ones house.
Why gun lovers support the Zim I don't know.

[glacierbay]

82. You give us permission to have a gun

as long as we don't carry it outside?
Funniest thing I heard today so far.

[PavePusher]

94. "Your (supposed) right to a gun stops when you take it outside."

Not according to the courts, the Constitution or the laws.

Fail-bot, much?

Bloomberg backed Obama. He is a LIBERAL democrat from Mass in case you didn't know

Bloomberg is more of a flag in the wind than Romney. He's whatever party he needs to be to buy an election from.

btw, I do NOT support Zimmerman, like the NRA and gun lovers do.

If you are insinuating that anyone here supports Zimmerman, you can certainly provide some cites to that, yes? At best, we support a thurough investigation and fair trial for him. Even if he's found to be legal and justified, I don't believe anyone here thinks he made good decisions to follow Martin that night.



Go have a cup of tea and do some yoga breathing, you need to calm down.

[Union Scribe]

169. Bloomberg is a right wing knob.

He built his career attacking unions, get a fucking clue. Just because someone shares your irrational fears, doesn't mean they're liberal. And for crying out loud, pick one stream of thought and stick with it. You're like a malfunctioning chat-bot.

[glacierbay]

81. I see our little RW authoritarian is back

It's really amusing to read his nonsensical rants, isn't it?

[graham4anything]

83. someday our prince will come...and MMMM is that Prince.

[glacierbay]

84. Are you talking about Blooming Idiot?

If I were you, and I'm glad I'm not, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to take on the NRA. What you constantly fail to grasp is that, yes, there are only 4.5 million NRA members, but, here's where you fail, there are appox. 76-80 million more gun owners in the country and if our 2A rights are threatened again, you will see the membership roles of the NRA swell and donations will flow into their coffers.
So you keep on living in your fantasy world of Blooming Idiot taking on the NRA, meanwhile those of us in the real world will keep on advancing gun rights.

[graham4anything]

85. guess you aren't an Obama fan. I would think you would appreciate he gave him his endorsement

[glacierbay]

86. You're a funny person

I voted straight D.
I could care less who Blooming Idiot gave his endorsement to, that has nothing to do with this thread, and you failed, once again, to address what I posted, but we here have come to expect that.

[graham4anything]

87. I expect no less from the multi-million dollar suits of the #1 lobby superPac in the world-the NRA

we need to do a full audit on the NRA and see where the heck their money came from

[glacierbay]

88. Another RW position

you approve of turning the IRS loose on an org. you don't like, even when there is zero evidence of any financial wrongdoing? Hmmmmmmmm, that sure sounds like what the rpukes do.

Admit it, you're just pissed because gun control as an issue is done for and you feel helpless.

[graham4anything]

133. I bide my time,but Mayor Mike is the Equalizer...btw, guns are rightwing.

you also totally overlooked that the 48 ounce soda thing, actually has worked with the group it was intended for-

it is meant as a wellness program and save zillions of dollars long term for those who least can afford health insurance

(and getting rid of legal guns to allow us to get rid of illegal guns will save millions of zillions of dead people long run.)

All you gun folk are sweating bullets because you know the interpretation of the 2nd will be changed long term by a better court
(the NRA & corporate personhood are one and the same...both will be gone one day).

as for audits- as a tax exempt org. one needs to know why they have tax exemption, and who the wizard is behind the curtain

[PavePusher]

137. "btw, guns are rightwing."? Now you claim to follow a sect of animism?

Man, you are truely all over the map. Get some focus, seriously.

it is meant as a wellness program and save zillions of dollars long term... getting rid of legal guns to allow us to get rid of illegal guns will save millions of zillions of dead people long run.

Yeah, that reasoning will surely stand up in court....


By the way, how do you intend to "get rid of the legal guns", without actually starting a Civil War? So far you've completely failed to lay out a viable plan for this. I assume that it would involve some kind of military/police force.... but that brings us back to the "Civil War".

[graham4anything]

139. you left out "in the street". (of course, because you guys have no answer for it)

you are not giving up your guns

Just the "in the street" part.

Again, I don't pack my stamp collection while sitting in a bar or seeing a movie.

get rid of ALL guns from the street, and you get rid of gun violence 100%.

with ZERO guns on the street, anyone with a gun instantly can be marked and problem eliminated by not being a threat to anyone INSIDE anywhere

very simple

[PavePusher]

144. "get rid of ALL guns from the street, and you get rid of gun violence 100%."

Do you plan to have police emulate Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" everywhere, on everyone? At all times?

Let me repeat myself: "viable plan". Please state what yours is. And again, avoid that Civil War.


I'm not even sure how you think that keeping guns merely to the home will "get rid of gun violence 100%". As usual, your "logic" falls on its face and breaks its nose.

[graham4anything]

146. I wouldn't expect you to understand as you don't want change.You want 1850s wild west.

if there are no guns in the streets, then the stupid lies by the gun people and NRA that guns protect you from being shot will be put to rest six feet under.

and Civil War? They lost, big time, with traitors like Lee and Jefferson Davis.

because the better people fought against the losers and won.

same thing would happen again

real men don't need guns
(the south in the civil war reminded me of Mitt Romney's wonderful election plan.)
Same people defeated each of them.

we are looking for our freedom from the 2nd amendment people who want to silence the first amendment rights and the declaration of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

each of which doesn't exist when a gun is pointed at one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

140. Mikey will be history soon enough...and it will be good riddance to repuke trash

I should also point out that "zillion" is not a legitimate number any more than your arguments are legitimate. Then again, made up number suit made up arguments.

[graham4anything]

142. He is a young man with billions to give away. His mother lived to be 102

the NRA is toast in the decades to come

why you love the #1 lobby corporate super pac I don't know.

[gejohnston]

143. much of it to keep Brown in the Senate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

148. What, he won't live to be a zillion? Or is he worth a zillion?

NRA books are open BTW.

I have no doubt Citizen Mikey will continue to use his money to get things done like the rest of the 1%ers. You sure seem to be in love with him.

[graham4anything]

149. the NRA is the 1%. 98.7% of America is NOT a member of the NRA.

4.3 out of 320 Americans

rounded that is 1%

you lose

Mike has said he is giving 100% of his billions(he earned after having nothing, by his own sweat and toil, with his business and of course his staff...(Mike never takes credit himself for all, he credits his entire staff).

And pays his taxes.

I have a feeling you yourself won't give away to causes 100% of your money, so I would not speak negative about anyone who does.

BTW-Mike is also a major "green" fan, and 100% believes in climate control (as opposed the NRA which believes in helping rid the world of the beautiful deer and bears and of course they still racially call any criminal an animal and are a great friend of the John Birch society type).(as witness the tea party who most are bonafide members in thought)

[Glaug-Eldare]

150. How many are the Brady bunch, now?

~28,000 members (according to the wiki)

~310,000,000 Americans

That equals ~0.009%

In other words, 99.991% of Americans are not members of the Brady Campaign.

1.34% is about 150 times 0.009%

[graham4anything]

151. I do not care about the Brady bill-it is fundamentally flawed and can never work

it is a red herring

the Brady bill does not delve into the cause of the problem- which is on the street LEGAL guns, therefore it is not workable

get rid of the guns from the street (and allow gun owners their constitutional right to protect themselves IN THEIR HOME ONLY like it was meant to be) and ban all guns outside
starting with legal guns

then it is simple ABC to stop people from moving from one location to the next

(simple as say an eye in the sky).

but the brady bill is rubbish. And the NRA knows this little tidbit too.

which is why Meek Mayor Mike scares the pants off of the NRA

he alone is the great equalizer.
ONE person defending the 99% percent

Mike is the protester in China in that T.Square incident with the tank.
that is MY MAYOR MIKE
going up against the NRA

[Glaug-Eldare]

152. Brady Campaign, not the bill.

They attempt to fight carry, scary guns, self-defense in public housing, etc.

It advocates the destruction of all 2A rights, same as you, and yet their membership is 150th that of the NRA. What gives? Wouldn't the 99% be more likely to join their friends than their enemies?

[graham4anything]

154. nobody ever heard of it. As the Pet Shop Boys sang (c)Sondheim "Somewhere"

it takes ONE person to start a revolution

Martin Luther King stood alone on day one

Ghandi stood alone on day one

Meek Mayor Mike stands alone on day one


and on day 7, they rest.

Rome wasn't built in a day
and neither was the compromise that was the Declaration and the added BOR

and of course Tom Jefferson was a hypocrite himself
all are equal, except for the slaves he owned and abused (LOL)

as Sondheim(c) wrote so wistfully "Somewhere, somehow someday"

here is my favorite version of that song
the Pet Shop Boys
somewhere

btw. I wonder if this will google into the Pet Shop Boys fan base(which is probably zillions world wide). Wonder if any lookie loos out there will read in.
PSB forever. (Why aren't they in the Rock and Roll hall of fame in Cleveland)?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

162. Your hero worship of a classic 1%er is both amazing and telling

After what happened at OWS that you still lap up his bath water is scary.

[glacierbay]

164. Isn't it?

This guy fully supports the Patriot Act, the no fly list, the terrorist watch list, more surveillance, more govt. control.
Why he's on a progressive site is beyond me, his views are more in tune with the Repugs.
He wants to turn the IRS loose on the NRA because he doesn't like them. Sounds exactly like what the R's do.

[glacierbay]

163. BTW

I hunt and fish for my own food, and as a police officer who has seen countless acts of violence, there are some people who are animals, actually, that's not fair to animals, they are heartless, souless, dirtbags whom society would be better off without.
Your naive view of the world astounds me, but if that's the way you want to live your live, more power to you, but you have no right to tell the rest of us what we can or cannot own or how we should live our lives.


So, tell us, how do you propose to get guns away from the dirtbags? More laws? Do you believe that those dirtbags will obey any law?
So far, you've never answered that question.

[PavePusher]

165. So far, s/he's never answered any question.

Even when asked for ideas on how to bring her/his utopia into existance.

[glacierbay]

167. Yep

He's all hat and no substance.

[graham4anything]

168. after a week or so with no lights not once did I feel I needed a gun...as Alan Jackson said in

his 9/11 song
did you buy a gun
or watch I love Lucy reruns

me, I watched I love Lucy reruns

guns kill.

and I told you a zillion plus times how one would get them away from the poor people who's circumstances in life make
them desperate

by not allowing any in the street
anyone caught by the eye in the sky or whatever method already is available or will be
will be subject to prosecution

and anyone who wants to keep them in their home, has nothing to worry about

really seems simple, so that my right of peaceful assembly is not harmed by your fake 2nd amendment

remember, they wrote it about cannons
and cannons are not moveable items
you don't pack a cannon in a restaurant
same as I don't pack my bowling ball in a bar

so I believe for the zillionth time I have told you

sheesh, Tommy sees and hears more than you do

[DonP]

91. How very fucking "Dick Cheney" of you

Use the government to investigate and punish your enemies. That's your big idea to win your point?

You probably love those warrantless wiretaps too I bet?

You're so blinded by your unconstitutional agenda and blind hope for a rich savior the end justifies the means.

You are on the wrong board with that kind of thinking bozo.

Dick Nixon is that you?

[glacierbay]

92. He's already on record

here on DU as fully supporting the Patriot Act, more surveilance, no fly list, terrorist watch list, every thing that the RW love.

[PavePusher]

97. Which begs the question:

Why is this damn troll still here?

[glacierbay]

99. Beats the hell out of me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. He- Like You - Is Entitled to His Opinion

[glacierbay]

161. Sure, he's entitled to his own opinion

but he's posting RW shit on a progressive site, he needs to take his authoritarian crap over to freeperville where it will be more in tune with their views.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. IRS audits of your political enemies? How very Nixonian.

"It's not about guns with gun control advocates, it's about control"

[PavePusher]

95. "THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWNING BULLETS"

Bullets fall under the catagory of "Arms" and thus are covered by the Constitution.

You have failed again.

[graham4anything]

132. no, they are not. Arms are not legs.

(though gun lovers think of their guns as another appendage don't they!

[PavePusher]

136. The only conclusion I can draw from your "rebutal"... is that freebasing is bad for you. Good luck.

[slackmaster]

96. "...get rid of ALL guns outside the home....."

Except, of course, for guns in the hands of government employees.

[DonP]

98. ... and Bloomies bodyguards of course

You have to remember that he's much more important than any of us and deserves to have all the armed guards he wants.

This guy is supposedly a progressive too. That's what really makes me scratch my head.

[PavePusher]

138. It's all Bizarro, all the time, with this one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. And That Is Bad?

What? You don't trust your government?

Overthrowing the government is treason. You can't have it both ways.... Use the same Constitution you want to overthrow with you guns while invoking an amendment you support as justifcation to keep your guns to overthrow the Constituion. There are lawful ways to seek redress called elections, courts and Constitutional Amendments.......and it does NOT include guns!

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Were you *entirely* sure about the government during the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II years?

You also seem to have forgotten a certain passage from the Declaration of Independence

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Of course, a cynic would say "It's not treason unless you lose", but the principle applies...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. History

Declaration of Independence was about overthrowing a system of government that provided no redress or rights enamored in the Constitution.

Seeking to over throw our Constitutional government with guns is treason.

And yes, the people had redress to impeach Nixon, Bush and Reagan and put each on trial. None stood trial in the Senate. None were impeached and none were removed with guns.

[slackmaster]

171. You're the only one here talking about "seeking to overthrow our Constitutional government"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

172. No

In post 96, you implied it was a bad thing for the goverment to have guns.

I wrote

What? You don't trust your government?

Overthrowing the government is treason. You can't have it both ways.... Use the same Constitution you want to overthrow with you guns while invoking an amendment you support as justifcation to keep your guns to overthrow the Constituion. There are lawful ways to seek redress called elections, courts and Constitutional Amendments.......and it does NOT include guns!

Others including friendly_iconoclast argued just that in a response suggesting we should have the right to use guns to remove Nixon and others. That's treason. So, no, I am NOT the one talking about overthrowing the government. That's the illogical premise of the gun advocates for why you simply must have guns....ludicrous.

Declaration of Independence was about overthrowing a system of government that provided no redress or rights enamored in the Constitution.

Seeking to over throw our Constitutional government with guns is treason.

And yes, the people had redress to impeach Nixon, Bush and Reagan and put each on trial. None stood trial in the Senate. None were impeached and none were removed with guns.

[slackmaster]

174. I can't tell whether you are being deliberately obtuse here, so I'll just explain my position again

In case you didn't understand reply #96, I'll explain it in unambiguous terms here:

The point of reply #96 was to point out the inherent hypocrisy (or duplicity) in reply #77. As is typical with people who make unqualified calls for blanket gun bans, graham4anything undoubtedly would make exceptions for police officers and for bodyguards employed by elected officials.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

176. You Clarified Your Position

I appreciate that although I don't appreciate the sarcasm.

Another poster intervened and argued exactly what I thought you were incorrectly arguing and that resulted in follow up response.

I understand your position even if I disagree.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. More

Good thing we have that armed militia to defend our Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies.

[slackmaster]

170. My issue is the the security of the state, which includes the capacity for effective self-defense

If government employees with guns can't ensure my security (and it certainly can't) then I may have to provide it for myself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

173. Ok

Disagree but ok.

[slackmaster]

175. The state isn't secure unless every community, neighborhood, family, and individual are also secure

The security of a free state isn't just about protecting the government from its enemies.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

177. Ok

Ok...using that argument, state interest take priority over both (state and 'community, neighborhood, family, and individual') since it encompasses both interests.

[upaloopa]

103. Until a Supreme Court with a different make up

changes the Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[gejohnston]

105. so you are saying all judges are politicians in robes

history and precedent be damned?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

109. Is that what he said?

.

[glacierbay]

106. Not gonna happen

it's settled law. I wouldn't hang my hat on the hope that the SCOTUS will revisit it, they are loathe to change settled law, all one has to do is look at Roe v Wade, the conservative court hasn't overturned that have they?

Why? Because it's settled law and the Justices don't like messing with settled law.
But if the idea of a more liberal SCOTUS changing the interpretation of the 2A is what helps you get through life, have at it.

[upaloopa]

115. Ever hear of Citizens United? It over turned

many years of settled law. Sorry your propaganda is way off on this one.

[gejohnston]

118. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Citizens_United_and_super_PACs

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. Hhhm

Well, I can only speak from my experience. I was arrested in a civil disobedience action at the Supreme Court in 1987 for protesting the 1986 Hardwick vs Bowers ruling. To this day, it remain's the largest protest at the Supreme Court with more arrests than any in history.

Seventeen years later in 2003, that 'settled' law was overturned in that same Court's Lawrence vs Texas case.

So, yes, while it's true that precedence takes priority, it's also true, the Court has overturned itself in my lifetime. I'm not so dismissive of the prospect of anything happening in today's polarized political judicial environment...good and/or bad depending on perspective.

[gejohnston]

119. there is a difference

Hardwick limited personal freedom. Decisions like Heller and McDonald expands them. Any ruling that subtracts individual freedom has a greater chance of being overturned than the opposite.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

128. Based on a Compelling State Interest

[gejohnston]

130. but compelling state interest has to be demostrated

and it should be a high standard. When gun laws are liberalized with no ill effects, like duels in the streets, there is no compelling state interest. When stricter laws do not work as advertised, there is no compelling state interest.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. Huh?

Huh?

"When gun laws are liberalized with no ill effects, like duels in the streets, there is no compelling state interest."

You mean like taking the law into your own hands? Good grief.

[gejohnston]

141. defending yourself is legal

taking "the law in your hands" is vigilantism, and is not. Until you have a grasp on the difference, please read the dictionary. There has not been a spike in vigilantism either. Or are you saying defending yourself should be criminalized?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. No One Is 'Defending' Themselves in a Duel

God Grief.

[gejohnston]

147. there are no duels in the street, that was the point

the cries of "blood and duels in the streets" did not happen.

[Starboard Tack]

116. Thankfully, the president made no reference to guns.

Of course the Second Amendment made no reference to guns either. So, in effect a law could be passed tomorrow prohibiting the carrying of all guns. Just sayin'

[MrModerate]

153. President Obama: Making fatuous statements is a Constitutional Right.

Oh, you knew that already, Barry? Color me unshocked.

[beachbumbob]

155. I am a gun owning liberal democrat

and proud of it. My only 2nd amendment concern is the selling/owning of assault weapons. There is no place for having these. Not used for hunting, only used for killing people

[Glaug-Eldare]

156. And the rate of homicides committed with "assault weapons"

continues to hold steady at "well, any day now."

[beachbumbob]

157. its the premise that assault weapoons are being sold.

The writers of the constitution did not envision weapons like the AK47 being in existence when they wrote the 2nd amendment....to argue they did is beyond ridiculous.

[Glaug-Eldare]

158. Automobiles, fax machines, televisions,

the Internet, vapor-compression refrigerators, ballpoint pens, defibrillators, aeroplanes, dynamite, multivitamins, electrovoltaic cells, electric lights, polypropylene, digital cameras, electric motors, &c. Time does not stand still.

[PavePusher]

160. Why did you not post your comment in a manner known to those writers?

You know, quill pen on parchment, ride horse to town hall, nail to door?

[PavePusher]

159. They are quite popular in lawful game hunting.

But I'm sure you knew that, Mr. Zumbo.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

166. Precise definitions matter on this topic

Do you mean detachable magazine fed semi automatic rifles?
Do you mean any firearm with a magazine over 10 rounds?
Do you mean "those scary looking guns"
Do you mean a rifle with a flash suppressor or pistol grip
Do you mean bullpup format rifles
Do you mean rifles with thumbhole stocks

I bring this up since those are all definition of assault weapons, a media term that is intentionally ambiguous.