Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
ppl are just gonna do it all anyway. it'll end up like the issue with prohabition and the boot legging.
Just because a number of firearms are on a list of banning (if it were true)..... it's still in no way an attack on the US people's right to bear arms. If it was a total ban on all firearms, then you might have an argument..... but so long as a selection of firearms are still available and not banned, then you still have the right to own a firearm.
You just might not be able to get the most advanced assault rifle or the most powerful sniper rifle.... big whoop..... Afghans are proving that you don't need the most powerful or the most advanced, let alone the newest weapons out there to fight off a powerful military force.
If you can aim it, shoot it and it can kill something.... then what more do you need?
Big powerful guns are a lot like sports cars or big trucks..... they're signs that somebody's overcompensating for something they're lacking.
Wrong.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?????
The Americans, as so clearly laid out in the Second Amendment, have the right to own and carry weapons that are roughly equivalent to the personal arms carried by their soldiers........as the citizenry IS the militia.
So far, since the death of the Assault Weapons Ban, most states have been in line with the Constitution.
Now, I wanted to point out that the lead article posted at the beginning of this thread is from March, 2009. The Obama administration may be salivating over American gun rights, but they are helpless.....ask Bill Clinton. He lost the House to a Republican majority in 1994 over the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban (the first time in 40 years)...........and believe it or not, Obama's administration is not suicidal.
From all indications, after tomorrow any move against gun rights will not get through first reading........
It's not infringed at all if you can still obtain firearms...... if you're going to use the word "Infringed" in such a way to allow a complete open door to obtain every kind of weapon designed for killing that's out there, then why not let people get tanks, RPG's, fighter jets and nuclear bombs?
They're all forms of "Arms" and since the amendment doesn't specifically state "Firearms" but just "Arms"..... why is there "Infringements" on obtaining any of the above?
And please don't give me that argument "Everybody should know that Arms means "Firearms" because that's what everybody used back when the amendment was made" because that was already debated to death a while back..... it's funny how people will spout off what is specifically said in the amendment, but when it comes to "Arms" and what that specifically means, suddenly we're supposed to assume it means Firearms and only firearms.
So start handing out RPGs, Grenades, land mines and C4..... allow people to own flamethrowers, sniper rifles, M-60's and mortars.
If it was "Clearly Laid Out" then these debates wouldn't exist, would they? ;-)
If it was clearly laid out, then how come the amendment doesn't state "Firearms" but just "Arms?"..... why doesn't the amendment clearly lay out what you just said about the equivalent of personal arms carried by the nation's soldiers?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
^ Sorry, that's about as clear a snot from a dog with a cold...... Regulated can mean many things....... Arms can mean many different forms of weapon..... and as we discussed many times before, they speak of a militia being needed for the security of a free state and therefore the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed...... yet where's the requirement of these people with their firearms to join this regulated militia?
After all, if nobody is willing to join this militia and use their "Arms" to ensure the security of the free state, then that so-called militia isn't very regulated is it?
I always found it funny how people will cling onto the last half of this amendment and only use the first part as a defence of the last half..... yet never use the last half as a defence for the first half which is the more important and more descriptive part of the whole thing.
There's no point in having everybody owning firearms if they're not going to actually use them to defend this "Free State"..... or are you going to argue that being able to own firearms of any kind is proof of a "Free State" even though there is no obligation for all these people with firearms to actually sign up for their local militia?
As you know, I'm not against firearms, be that owning or using (under certain circumstances)..... but me being the technical person that I am when reading things, this whole 2nd Amendment thing is completely full of holes and in no way is it "Clearly Laid Out."
The only thing that's "Clearly Laid Out" is what's laid out within a person's own subjective interpretation of what the words are supposed to mean..... thus what makes sense to you as being clearly laid out, isn't the same thing someone else will interpret when reading the above words....
..... and until those words are specifically laid out properly and in detail to what is supposed to be meant in the first place, the final conclusions of what this amendment means will remain up in the air and many others beyond just you and I will continue debating this topic like it has been debated for years past.
But nobody will touch the 2nd amendment, either by modifying it or simply clearing up what it means, because as it stands now, both sides of the argument can use the current wording to suit their own objectives, can further continue to cloud the whole topic, allow nothing to really change and of course, nobody wants to tweak it to make actual sense because anybody doing so would be seen as the bad guy.
Anyways, my main point is that no, it's not clearly stated about anything being equivalent to the military in regards to citizens and their "Arms" and the so-called "Militia" nobody seems obligated in joining up to...... and you saying it's clear, simply doesn't make it so.
First of all, you have NO idea how many serious weapons are out there in the USA.....yes I mean tanks, etc.
But the right says "bear", and you can't carry a tank. Or an F-16.
And people already own "sniper rifles".....don't get caught up in THAT bit of propaganda.......there is NO significant difference between the Remington bolt action .308 caliber deer rifle in my gun locker and the Remington bolt action .308 sniper rifle in a Marine sniper's locker........
As for full autos, well, perhaps you hadn't heard....check out the vids.
http://www.bulletproofnerds.com/smf/index.php?topic=642.0
Now, Clinton stopped the sale of further full autos, IMHO a violation of the constitution........
Larger weapons are classified as "destructive devices", and none of them are personal arms such as would be carried by your average militiaman..........so they are not protected.
As for
Ok....Defintion of the US Militia, my emphasis.....
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+181+40++(militia)%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
Last edited:
Perhaps it would be useful to have a forum just for unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. We could post all of our fairy and UFO sightings there as well.
Oh I have no doubt Obama and the Democrats would love to smash up the Second Amendment....but they didn't dare, just like he didn't dare do so much........and now his chance has passed.
Thankfully.
If you can find any reference to ban guns in the platform of any Democrat I would be greatly surprised. We are talking US politics here; there are no true left-wingers, just more moderate right wingers. Ban guns in the US? Hell they can't even agree on how to properly regulate them.
Oh there are left wingers. They would give any Canadian a run for there money as far as liberalism.
Oh, but yes they have agreed on how to properly regulate them.....not bloody much.....as is proper in a free country.
Try Charlie Schumer, just for starters..............
Great vid Ironsides. The lady put it plain and clear. We have the right to defend ourselves from all events and especially from a tyrannical or oppressive govt.
Yeah, I know, It's an old thread, but it is quite true that in a good lie lies a bit of truth, which entices a person to buy that couple hundred acres.
Ditto, and once we start to ban certain firearms it just continues, like a snowball. There is a perverse effect in firearms bans, the more prohibited they are the more coveted they become for the sociopaths, and then we ban some more, and on and on it goes. In the UK for sure, (I'm not too sure about Australia) you do not have the right to the use of deadly force for defense of self. Allan Rock said that self protection is not a valid reason to posess firearms, and being Justice MInister at the time that belief percolated down to the courts, but that still is not the law of our land yet, lets not let it become the law of our land.