Obama on the 2nd Amendment

[megaladon6]

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

come on guys, even the founders said "well regulated" and the right to keep and bear is not infringed by registration. carry permits, which NO ONE complains about do infringe on it though. so why no complaints about that?
and just because hitler did something, doesn't automatically make it bad.
you register your car, medical practices, and black belts, why not guns?
if the gov't comes to illegally take it away, shoot 'em!
i'm sorry but there are too many idiots with guns, and the regulations need to be strict to limit that. of course most of the regulations out there are stupid and useless and need to be thrown out.

 

[Chevyman85]

let'em have guns. anyone can have a gun.
keeps 2nd amendment intact.

regulate bullets or gun powder.

Anyone can load their own ammunition. I reload for all of my firearms. It costs less, the quality is better, and they are more accurate. Regulating bullets and ammo won't change anything.

As far as gun regulation goes look at Australia, enough said. The crime rate has never been higher since they revoked the right to own firearms. The reason this country is great is because we have the freedom to do what we want without fear of persucion. I can drive a car with a SBC and own a few dozen firearms without my government getting into my business.

Every gun sold (legally) is registered at the time of sale currently. And most states have a 3day-2week waiting period for handgun purchases. Like most of you were saying; legislation will not prevent firarms reaching the hands of criminals. They will still get them legal or not!

 

[jonnyslick]

If anything, the second amendment needs to become more liberalized in it's interpretation to get more guns on the streets. I want my government to cower in fear at the possibility of a pissed off populace rising up against them should they become to tyrannical. This is not to say I am proposing armed revolution here, things are nowhere near that bad. I just want lawmakers to think more fearfully about the negative consequences of adding too many restrictions to individual liberty, like higher taxes and new government agencies. The right to bear arms is the ultimate check on governmental authority. That being said, I do not own, nor do I wish to own a gun of any kind ( except maybe an AK-47. I really want to take one apart and see how it works!). I have no need of one, but I want the option to be there should I ever change my mind.

Let's not forget who the first politician was that required gun registration-Adolf Hitler. He used it as information as to who to confiscate guns from. All threats to liberty in democratic nations start off as fairly innocuous policies which then evolve into tyranny. A tyranny of the masses is, after all, still tyranny. Plus, most of the people who wish to abridge the right to bear arms are white, middle class suburbanite pricks with no concept of the lives of people who live in different situations, such as rural areas which are not heavily policed, or inner city neighborhoods that are so dangerous the police avoid them. There are reasons to need a gun for self-protection. And frankly, far more people die in car accidents every year than from gunshot wounds. However, very few people want to ban cars ( ironically, it's usually the same people who want to ban guns...).

Don't forget also that Hitler and Obama both ran on political platforms of egalitarian populism, claiming to want to do away with class distinctions, etc. I AM NOT SAYING OBAMA IS A GENOCIDAL MANIAC!!! What I am saying is look at the other policies of the National Socialists (Try to Ignore "The Final Solution" and see what else they stood for) and you will see some surprising parallels. The Nazis were environmentalists, believed in socialist policies, national health care ( which included euthanasia for those taking up too much money), claimed to be "restoring" national pride and prestige, believed in new infrastructure, etc. There are also parallels with Marxism, which makes sense since Fascism, Socialism and Marxist-Communism are all left wing political movements. They vary in the degree of economic and political freedom though.

*standing ovation*

Man if YOU run for any office, let me know b/c I WILL vote for you! 😛

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Well, I am tired of the "average" middle class people dictating life for everyone based on their myopic view of the world that is based solely on their experiences and fears. Everyone fears people who are not like them, and they then try to force those people to conform with their world view by legally restricting their options. Not every societal ill needs to be addressed by the government, some need to be worked out by individuals as they see fit. After all, every time you put a program in place to "help" someone with a particular problem, you take away the individual's responsibility over that part of their life. This can also be seen as a limitation on personal freedom, as the option is taken away and more and more of your life becomes the purview of government officials. For example, if we have national health care, then the government has it in it's best interest to limit your activities so as to reduce their liabilities and overall costs. The "model" British system has now determined that it is not always necessary to save someone's life if it is possible, if it does not make fiscal sense from a purely utilitarian point of view. So, the next logical step will be forced euthanasia in order to further control end of life costs to the state. That sounds like the kind of health care system I want for me! If you are British, you can't opt out of their system either ( just like Hillary Care), you are stuck with a failing system which will put a kind, caring bureaucrat in charge of determining if your life has enough value to the state to continue.

 

[maximus84]

 

[Stoopud]

From past experience 85CutlassBrougham and I do not agree on much politically, however we are in exact agreement on the gun control issue. I could not have written better posts myself.

The right to bear arms was not added to the Constitution to give us the right to protect ourselves from criminals. They did not foresee current crime and probably thought the right to protect yourself was God given and was not even addressed. We were given this right to protect ourselves from the government. Remember these men were political revolutionaries who had just revolted from an unjust government and were very mindful of the possibility of it happening again. The only difference between a responsible citizenry and good peasants is the right to bear arms.

I am a "liberal" (actually a conservative socialist) who supports Obama just because he is the most "liberal" person running. I am however often at odd's with my "liberal" counterparts in that I do not believe in Gun Control, I support Capital Punishment, and believe we should deport every illegal alien one at a time if necessary.

That being said, I still support the democrats. Get us out of Iraq, keep us out of Iran, win in Afganistan, fix the economy, and give us universal health care, and I will still fight them tooth and nail on Gun Control, Capital Punishment, and immigration. As soon as the election is over I become a warrior for the other side on these issues. I wish we could find a politician I agree with on everything but I cannot. Side with the guy you agree with on these big issues, and fight them on the rest. I know all politicians lie but at least they tell me the lies I want to hear.

Obama cannot/ will not change gun control in this country, and if he does mine just become illegal. Nothing else changes.

 

[Stoopud]

From past experience 85CutlassBrougham and I do not agree on much politically, however we are in exact agreement on the gun control issue. I could not have written better posts myself.

The right to bear arms was not added to the Constitution to give us the right to protect ourselves from criminals. They did not foresee current crime and probably thought the right to protect yourself was God given and was not even addressed. We were given this right to protect ourselves from the government. Remember these men were political revolutionaries who had just revolted from an unjust government and were very mindful of the possibility of it happening again. The only difference between a responsible citizenry and good peasants is the right to bear arms.

I am a "liberal" (actually a conservative socialist) who supports Obama just because he is the most "liberal" person running. I am however often at odd's with my "liberal" counterparts in that I do not believe in Gun Control, I support Capital Punishment, and believe we should deport every illegal alien one at a time if necessary.

That being said, I still support the democrats. Get us out of Iraq, keep us out of Iran, win in Afganistan, fix the economy, and give us universal health care, and I will still fight them tooth and nail on Gun Control, Capital Punishment, and immigration. As soon as the election is over I become a warrior for the other side on these issues. I wish we could find a politician I agree with on everything but I cannot. Side with the guy you agree with on these big issues, and fight them on the rest. I know all politicians lie but at least they tell me the lies I want to hear.

Obama cannot/ will not change gun control in this country, and if he does mine just become illegal. Nothing else changes.

 

[megaladon6]

well technically speaking, froma strict constructionist view point---(have i qualified that enough?)--the first part about the militia is the only part about protecting yourself from the gov't. the right to own and carry is on it's own. strictly speaking it keeps gov't from saying you can't have a hunting rifle or personal self-protection weapon. this is why i don't feel registration violates the 2nd amendment.
from some quick looking around, the problem isn't so much first time purchasing--as stated earlier that's automatic, it's more about trade show purchases. there are no records, you don't even know if the person can legally own the weapon.

 

[maximus84]

well technically speaking, froma strict constructionist view point---(have i qualified that enough?)--the first part about the militia is the only part about protecting yourself from the gov't. the right to own and carry is on it's own. strictly speaking it keeps gov't from saying you can't have a hunting rifle or personal self-protection weapon. this is why i don't feel registration violates the 2nd amendment.
from some quick looking around, the problem isn't so much first time purchasing--as stated earlier that's automatic, it's more about trade show purchases. there are no records, you don't even know if the person can legally own the weapon.

I agree for the most part,but I'm just afraid of what registration in the wrong hands or used for other purposes could/would do.I have nothing to hide,but being tracked on paper,by GPS,by satellite,or with cameras isnt appealing to me in the least,as far as invasion of privacy,& infringing on my rights.But the flip side of that is also a huge benefit for recovering stolen property,rescue,tracking criminals,kids,dogs and stolen vehicles..as well as our children

 

[megaladon6]

damn it!! that's what i've been trying to say. thank you for stating it properly. to me the pro's outweigh the cons (no pun intended 🙂 ) on this one.