Only 2 Gun Laws By Obama Total---Both Benefit Gun Owners --0 Guns BANNED in 5.5 Years

reply to post by projectvxn

Well I hope it stays that way because having to respond to asinine and hyperbolic accusations is really getting old.

Weren't you saying in another thread that it is this kind of discourse that is hurting the country? Or does that metric only apply to those on the opposite end of what you believe?

My apologies, I do tend to respond in the same manner that I'm responded to.

But you're absolutely right. It doesn't get us anywhere towards a solution to by hyperbolic. As I've said before, this administration has only passed two laws pertaining to guns. Both of those laws expanded gun rights.

Apparently that's not enough for the pro gun side of this argument. And frankly nothing short of firearm vending machines in daycares, and schools will be.

Frankly if it were up to me, the only way you could have a firearm is either with prior military service or being in the National Guard. Which would satisfy the first part of the 2nd Amendment that the pro gun side often ignores. I mean the whole 2nd Amendment is only a single sentence long, and they ignore the first half altogether. Not to mention what it says in the body of the Constitution itself about the Militia.

reply to post by HauntWok

Here's a question, does the 2nd Amendment say ANY arms? Or does it say the right to keep and bear arms? I keep looking for that important word ANY in the 2nd Amendment, I can't seem to find it.

Does the first Amendment say ANY religion?

Does it say ANY speech?

Does the 4th Amendment apply only to papers, houses, and personal effects and not your emails and phone conversations?

3rd amendment doesn't saying anything about quartering paramilitary troops. So I guess extramilitary strike teams can just take over your house 'eh? After all new day and age right?

HauntWok
reply to post by Daedalus

 

and i ask you again: how can a president pass a law, granting freedoms one is already guaranteed by the constitution?

Well, first the bill is brought up in the House of Representatives, often, it's sent to a specialized committee to be drafted, reviewed, formalized, then it's brought again before the house for a vote. If at that time it passes the House, it moves on to the Senate.

The Senate discusses it, makes any changes they see fit, votes on that bill, and it's once again sent back to the house. Both the House and Senate first have to hammer out a mutually agreed to bill, once that is done, it's sent to the President to sign.

That's how the president passes a law.

Here's a question, does the 2nd Amendment say ANY arms? Or does it say the right to keep and bear arms? I keep looking for that important word ANY in the 2nd Amendment, I can't seem to find it.

Does the first amendment specify any speech? Any books? I can't find it there either. (Here's a hint about the Constitution, if something was considered necessary to be restricted or be controlled by the Federal Government, it was put their specifically. Anything not put there specifically was considered the purview of the states or of the people. See 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Also note that it is called the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Restrictions", which also gives one a clue as to the intent behind them. )

reply to post by HauntWok

Frankly if it were up to me, the only way you could have a firearm is either with prior military service or being in the National Guard. Which would satisfy the first part of the 2nd Amendment that the pro gun side often ignores. I mean the whole 2nd Amendment is only a single sentence long, and they ignore the first half altogether. Not to mention what it says in the body of the Constitution itself about the Militia.

The Militia and the Regulars were two totally different entities during the revolutionary era.

Since the Federalist Papers, and the subsequent debates on the meanings of the Constitutional tenets were settled, the definition of who and what the militia is has long been set both in the arguments for the 2nd Amendment in the Federalist Papers AND in legislation since.

Trying to rewrite that definition to give the government a monopoly on Arms is ridiculous.

The government doesn't have rights it has powers with clearly defined boundaries throughout the Constitution. Every single right that IS enumerated in the Bill of Rights pertains to the individual except for the tenth amendment which is for the states and the people as aa whole respectively, and the 9th protects rights reserved by the people or individuals not enumerated in the BoR, but no rights are given to the Federal Government. Why is it that only the second amendment is constantly targeted as NOT being in the same context?

As someone who is a Regular, to mean that I am active duty US Army, I find the proposition of the US population disarmed in favor of keeping a standing military in perpetual monopoly of said arms profoundly disturbing.

HauntWok
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Well I hope it stays that way because having to respond to asinine and hyperbolic accusations is really getting old.

Weren't you saying in another thread that it is this kind of discourse that is hurting the country? Or does that metric only apply to those on the opposite end of what you believe?

My apologies, I do tend to respond in the same manner that I'm responded to.

But you're absolutely right. It doesn't get us anywhere towards a solution to by hyperbolic. As I've said before, this administration has only passed two laws pertaining to guns. Both of those laws expanded gun rights.

Apparently that's not enough for the pro gun side of this argument. And frankly nothing short of firearm vending machines in daycares, and schools will be.

Frankly if it were up to me, the only way you could have a firearm is either with prior military service or being in the National Guard. Which would satisfy the first part of the 2nd Amendment that the pro gun side often ignores. I mean the whole 2nd Amendment is only a single sentence long, and they ignore the first half altogether. Not to mention what it says in the body of the Constitution itself about the Militia.

The National Guard, founded over a hundred years after the Constitution, is not the militia. The "militia"" is every citizen.

From title 10, US code: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age

The intent and use of the word "militia" is EVERYONE. Believe it or not, you are part of the unorganized militia. If you do not own an AR-15 and practice with it frequently, you are remiss in your duties as a good citizen.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Does the first amendment specify any speech? Any books? I can't find it there either. (Here's a hint about the Constitution, if something was considered necessary to be restricted or be controlled by the Federal Government, it was put their specifically. Anything not put there specifically was considered the purview of the states or of the people. See 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Also note that it is called the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Restrictions", which also gives one a clue as to the intent behind them. )

In fact it does. It says that congress shall make NO law. So that pertains to ANY freedoms of speech or religion.

And in fact it was put in the constitution specifically. Under Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 15 & 16.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

HauntWok
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Oh please, the correlation between firearms and male feelings of inadequacy are well documented. So is the correlation between inadequate males and buying an F350 with a lift kit.

No that is not correct and is a myth. If fact, Freud found fear of firearms connected to impotency, but, hey, to Freud everything was about the phallus anyway.

The sad thing is that, when unable to discuss thing logically, leftists always seem to turn it into an insult about sexuality or race. What is their fascination with the penis?

HauntWok
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Does the first amendment specify any speech? Any books? I can't find it there either. (Here's a hint about the Constitution, if something was considered necessary to be restricted or be controlled by the Federal Government, it was put their specifically. Anything not put there specifically was considered the purview of the states or of the people. See 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Also note that it is called the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Restrictions", which also gives one a clue as to the intent behind them. )

In fact it does. It says that congress shall make NO law. So that pertains to ANY freedoms of speech or religion.

And in fact it was put in the constitution specifically. Under Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 15 & 16.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

And it also says the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. By the same token and using the similar verbiage, the same philosophy applies to the first as the second. Notice they did not say "only for militia members" or "only in militia service" or "only in the army." They said, THE PEOPLE (you know--all of us, not some of us).

Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 15 & 16 puts forth the duties of the Federal government pertaining to using the militia. It does not authorize disarming or controlling firearms at all. Very weak argument.

reply to post by ZeroFurrbone

Let's actually have a conversation about "the militia" then. Let's discuss the actual military history of the failure of the voluntary citizen militia within 50 years of the signing of the constitution.

Let's actually have a conversation about the understanding that the Founders knew that the Constitution would serve as the basis for a Government that would grow and change over time to meet the needs of a growing and changing nation.

Let's actually have a conversation that acknowledges that the geographic conditions of the modern US are completely unimaginable to the men who created the Constitution and acknowledge that they would be the first to say that it is up to us to be as reasonable and equitable to establish modern amendments, laws, regulations, etc.

Let's actually have a conversation that acknowledges that the technology of modern firearms does make a difference in terms of what the Founders had in mind or anyone in the 18th century could have had in mind when phrasing a "right to keep and bear arms."

Anyone willing to do that?

HauntWok
Well, first the bill is brought up in the House of Representatives, often, it's sent to a specialized committee to be drafted, reviewed, formalized, then it's brought again before the house for a vote. If at that time it passes the House, it moves on to the Senate.

The Senate discusses it, makes any changes they see fit, votes on that bill, and it's once again sent back to the house. Both the House and Senate first have to hammer out a mutually agreed to bill, once that is done, it's sent to the President to sign.

That's how the president passes a law.

nice sidestep, smartass....how about you answer the question?

Here's a question, does the 2nd Amendment say ANY arms? Or does it say the right to keep and bear arms? I keep looking for that important word ANY in the 2nd Amendment, I can't seem to find it.

because when it was written, people were not idiots. they understood that by saying "shall not be infringed", it meant that there was to be no limitation...which means any arms..

the government making laws that infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms would violate the "shall not be infringed" bit...that effectively means any arms, but then common sense kicks in, and people with an IQ higher than room temperature realize, and understand that it is unrealistic to own nukes, jet fighters, tanks, and all the rest of the absurdities that people throw out there, to try and make the pro-second amendment argument look silly, and the people who argue it, look like lunatics..

it's hyperbole...

HauntWok
My apologies, I do tend to respond in the same manner that I'm responded to.

apparently not...you replied with hyperbole, you ignored anything you couldn't make a smartass reply to, and pretty much just soaked the whole thing in ignorance..you couldn't even be bothered to provide the information to back your claims...your reply was crap.

But you're absolutely right. It doesn't get us anywhere towards a solution to by hyperbolic. As I've said before, this administration has only passed two laws pertaining to guns. Both of those laws expanded gun rights.

the president can't grant a right to someone, that they already have...

Apparently that's not enough for the pro gun side of this argument. And frankly nothing short of firearm vending machines in daycares, and schools will be.

more hyperbole, and sheer idiocy....if you HONESTLY believe that's what pro-second amendment advocates are after, then you're more disturbed than you claim we are...

Frankly if it were up to me, the only way you could have a firearm is either with prior military service or being in the National Guard. Which would satisfy the first part of the 2nd Amendment that the pro gun side often ignores. I mean the whole 2nd Amendment is only a single sentence long, and they ignore the first half altogether. Not to mention what it says in the body of the Constitution itself about the Militia.

i'm glad it's not up to you....i'd hate to have my rights re-interpreted by someone with such lousy reading and language comprehension skills...

do you really need me to explain it to you?

Danbones
not so fast op not so fast

The administration made a robust effort to pass gun control legislation after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., but the bills, which included new bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, failed to gain enough support in Congress.

www.foxnews.com...
it isn't that the obama administration isn't trying
after shooting them selves in the foot with fast and furious, and steady opposition from the patriot campaigns,..
its only a matter of time till these anti freedom tyrannists force their way upon the peeps...
through scam, executive decree, or the best government money can buy

that mental patient designation would be primarily one way to keep guns from vets
ooops i mean white alqaida

edit on Monpm4b20144America/Chicago12 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on Tueam4b20144America/Chicago11 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

with all the congressional hearings and published reports put out, you are still blaming Obama for fast and furious
and you need to look at the republican states that are anti-freedom on abortion rights, birth-control, voting rights...those tyrannies have already been legislated, and are being enforced.

jimmyx
with all the congressional hearings and published reports put out, you are still blaming Obama for fast and furious
and you need to look at the republican states that are anti-freedom on abortion rights, birth-control, voting rights...those tyrannies have already been legislated, and are being enforced.

the Obama ADMINISTRATION is responsible for fast and furious.

not the president himself, outside of the FACT that it happened on his watch, under his nose....are you refusing to entertain the notion that he might have known about it?

Gryphon66
Let's actually have a conversation about "the militia" then. Let's discuss the actual military history of the failure of the voluntary citizen militia within 50 years of the signing of the constitution.

Let's actually have a conversation about the understanding that the Founders knew that the Constitution would serve as the basis for a Government that would grow and change over time to meet the needs of a growing and changing nation.

Let's actually have a conversation that acknowledges that the geographic conditions of the modern US are completely unimaginable to the men who created the Constitution and acknowledge that they would be the first to say that it is up to us to be as reasonable and equitable to establish modern amendments, laws, regulations, etc.

Let's actually have a conversation that acknowledges that the technology of modern firearms does make a difference in terms of what the Founders had in mind or anyone in the 18th century could have had in mind when phrasing a "right to keep and bear arms."

Anyone willing to do that?

Certainly. The militia act of 1792 says that pretty much every adult male citizen is a member of the militia.

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years,

It also says that every citizen shall provide themselves with the arms and equipment of the average regular soldier.

The intent of the framers and how the laws worked is that every citizen was the member of the militia and every citizen arm and equip themselves as the average soldier. The framers wanted all citizens to be armed. That is one thing that they all agreed upon.

There were repeating arms at the time. There were arms developments all of he time. Certainly they anticipated that arms technology would move forward.

If one takes the tack of "they didn't envisions semi auto babykillers" I would disagree on a few counts. Firstly, they were quite aware that arms developed over time--they themselves saw the history of development from bow to cross bow to matchlock to wheel lock to flintlock. Each step up creating a more deadly and efficient weapon than the other. They also saw each development restricted by despots in Europe who wanted to a monopoly on the means of self defense and force themselves. At a time in England, it was illegal to own a flintlock because "only a criminal would not want a matchlock because an honest man wouldn't worry about giving himself away with a lit match." Of course, the real reason is that the King wanted his men to be able to fight in the wet and he didn't want those who opposed them to have that advantage.

Secondly, if the argument is that they didn't imagine such technology so the second amendment does not apply to firearms, then the same thing could be said about the first amendment and by that same reasoning, it shouldn't apply to telephone, telegraph, radio, DVD, movies, TV, computers, texting, and emails.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Let's actually have a conversation that acknowledges that the technology of modern firearms does make a difference in terms of what the Founders had in mind or anyone in the 18th century could have had in mind when phrasing a "right to keep and bear arms." 

Anyone willing to do that?

In that case lets talk about how the printing press, not the computer, was the technology of the time and is the context by which we should frame free speech.

This argument is ridiculous and a logical fallacy when it comes to the context of technology in the revolutionary era.

At the time of the revolutionary war there were several advancements in small arms not the least of which was the rifled musket.

The founders, being technologists, inventors of their time, and Innovators, were well aware of the advancements in technology. For weapons and otherwise.

This silly argument that technology has somehow erased the dangers common to man throughout time, or that advancements in that technology are excuses for encroaching and infringing on rights is simply weak sauce.

jimmyx

Danbones
not so fast op not so fast

The administration made a robust effort to pass gun control legislation after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., but the bills, which included new bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, failed to gain enough support in Congress.

www.foxnews.com...
it isn't that the obama administration isn't trying
after shooting them selves in the foot with fast and furious, and steady opposition from the patriot campaigns,..
its only a matter of time till these anti freedom tyrannists force their way upon the peeps...
through scam, executive decree, or the best government money can buy

that mental patient designation would be primarily one way to keep guns from vets
ooops i mean white alqaida

edit on Monpm4b20144America/Chicago12 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on Tueam4b20144America/Chicago11 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

with all the congressional hearings and published reports put out, you are still blaming Obama for fast and furious
and you need to look at the republican states that are anti-freedom on abortion rights, birth-control, voting rights...those tyrannies have already been legislated, and are being enforced.

So in your mind one restriction of freedom equates to permission to violate another freedom?

Where, in any State, is abortion, birth control, voting rights are restricted? Are you ignorant or just buying into leftist hyperbole?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Militia Act(s) of 1792: Actually, two acts 1) the focus of this gave the US President control over the various State militias, 2) created a conscriptive force for defense of the United States from "foreign" invasion and rebellion.

These Acts were basically renewed in 1795 and 1862. And I would think you well know that these were all effectively superseded in 1903 by the creation of the National Guard.

WE also know that the hesitations of the Founders were due to their memories of the uses and abuses of standing armies both by Kings and Revolutionaries (Glorious Revolution, et. al) in England. They were utterly against a standing army of the United States and believed (until experience proved otherwise) that a nation of citizen-soldiers would be able to meet the defensive needs of the country.

Even James Madison, oft-quoted apparent advocate of the citizen militia was well aware of the need for a formal national disciplined force after the War of 1812 during his Presidency.

I have no question that the Framers intended Americans to be able to keep firearms for their own defense, for hunting/survival, and for sport. The idea (which, actually is a fairly new development in American history, first becoming prevalent in the 1970s with changes in the NRA membership) that the Framers intended that no limitations on any firearms of any nature at any point for any reason could be implaced is madness. As well, there is nothing that says that the individual States cannot place reasonable limitations, requirements, limitations, etc. on firearm ownership, but that's a different argument.

A well regulated Militia.

As we have determined every able bodied adult is automatically part of the unorganized Militia, we get back to that wee little word REGULATED.

Oh snap! Game, set, match!

Gun control regulations are indeed constitutional (and they really are, or the Supreme court would have thrown out every single freaking gun law that ever passed faster than any president could sign them.)

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Militia Act(s) of 1792: Actually, two acts 1) the focus of this gave the US President control over the various State militias, 2) created a conscriptive force for defense of the United States from "foreign" invasion and rebellion.

These Acts were basically renewed in 1795 and 1862. And I would think you well know that these were all effectively superseded in 1903 by the creation of the National Guard.

WE also know that the hesitations of the Founders were due to their memories of the uses and abuses of standing armies both by Kings and Revolutionaries (Glorious Revolution, et. al) in England. They were utterly against a standing army of the United States and believed (until experience proved otherwise) that a nation of citizen-soldiers would be able to meet the defensive needs of the country.

Even James Madison, oft-quoted apparent advocate of the citizen militia was well aware of the need for a formal national disciplined force after the War of 1812 during his Presidency.

I have no question that the Framers intended Americans to be able to keep firearms for their own defense, for hunting/survival, and for sport. The idea (which, actually is a fairly new development in American history, first becoming prevalent in the 1970s with changes in the NRA membership) that the Framers intended that no limitations on any firearms of any nature at any point for any reason could be implaced is madness. As well, there is nothing that says that the individual States cannot place reasonable limitations, requirements, limitations, etc. on firearm ownership, but that's a different argument.

But it's not "madness" as they did not put any restrictions on them in the first place and none were done one a federal level until 1934 with the NFA. The framers did indeed intend that no limitations were to be put of firearms at any time. They said so quite clearly in all of their writings on the subject.