Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by onalandline, Mar 10, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .... what is the source for the bit concerning "high powered" firearms?
     
  2. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .... what is the source for the bit concerning "high powered" firearms?
     
  3. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Tax the law-abiding, and let the criminals run rampant. Wow, what a solution.
     
  4. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You got a link?
     
  5. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
  6. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    oh yeah ~ much credibility there

    lol!
     
  7. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Mr-Truth, the problem you have, is that you fail or refuse to see the truth.
     
  8. Silverhair

    Silverhair New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You need to check your history on that. Reality is strongly against you. Bush 43 signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 which Obama voted against. That was a MAJOR protection for gun rights. Bush also signed the The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. Obama did vote for it.

    Obama's expansions were merely riders on other important must-pass legislation. To get the credit card reform bill that he wanted he had to accept guns-in-parks or veto both.
     
    DixNickson and (deleted member) like this.
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't you believe our tax Money being transferred via the coercive use of force of our government is a Burden to the citizenry of our republic?

    Why is it that gun lovers don't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The push to report sales of more than one "high powered rifle" anything over a .22. to the Feds, like multiple handgun sales.
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and is exempted from State gun control (law) for that purpose.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nope, reality is still firmly in place, and very much on my side. the only legislation obama has signed into law, has EXPANDED gun rights. more so than the past 3 presidents.
     
  13. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually the second amendment originally prevented the federal government from restricting the right. The 2nd was not incorporated to the states till McDonald VS Chicago. Since the restrictions in Chicago, New York, and D.C. still prevent average citizens from exercising their rights, I would say it was a rather hollow victory. If the states wished to activate their militias they would be immune from federal restrictions on firearms in theory, or if congress activated the militia it might then be immune from state gun control but short of that no one is immune to either.
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not sure what you mean, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and is exempted from State gun control (law) for that purpose; and was only intended to excempt a well regulated militia from laws that affect the citizenry of a State who may not be "entitled to the character of a well regulated militia", and therefore subject to State gun control (laws).
     
  15. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What i never understood with the above statement. The United States is not the United Kingdom. The usa is not an island but neighbouring via land to mexico and south america. Also canada but i leave them out of this (they are too nice for gun debates)

    So the usa is not an island but wants to have a militia which will eventually face off with land base neighbours.

    Sort of like the scottish who tried to invade england once but bless their hearts, they got confused and invaded Liverpool.

    My point: Do these views of usa armed militia work, are they rational and sane when faced with the complexity of neighbouring nation disputes if they get out of hand.
     
  16. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How are law-abiding citizens exercising their rights doing this? Be specific, and stop repeating your one-liners.
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Would we need the expense of a War on Crime, if towns and cities had recourse to a well regulated militia?
     
  18. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A so-called "War on Crime" has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms. A well-regulated militia, in your utopian world, will not stop crime.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are overlooking the concept due to your propaganda and rhetoric. It is about lowering our Tax burden through collective action and individual liberty and individual responsibility.

    The Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and is to be preferred to even standing arminies in their modern times, for them.

    Simply establishing a Standard for a well Regulated militia could eventially enable some persons who keep and bear Arms, to be "entitled to the character of a well regulated militia" and exempted from State gun control laws, simply for being Necessary to the security of a free State.
     
  20. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How does this lower our tax burden?
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We should no longer need the expense of a War on Crime.
     
  22. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
     
  23. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Citation needed.
     
  24. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It has to do with what is Necessary to the security of a free State, so that we don't need the expense of a War on Crime.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page