275 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

The Supreme Court disagrees Q.

[nothingliz]

There are a few things keeping the enemies of America that are in the highest levels of government from taking over America.  Two of them are God and the Constitution.  Right now America is a dieing patient the enemies of America are a virus that is replicating and it is doing everything to try to keep the patient sick, even trying to convince us why we should love it.  The Ideals and lawas of the Constitution has already been weathered away and it's true purpose has been eroded.  But it is still the American peoples belief that the constitution is still the document that defines all laws and our habitation here in America.  When the people are convinced to let it go for security and prosperity that brings neither for it is a Con, then the constitution will be a memory.  But when the people finally have had enough the words of the Decleration of Independence will ring loud and clear so that they will see how important both documents are.  But to remove God from the equation is to effectively kill the patient.  Right now God is carrying us through and if we allow the enemies of America to convince our hearts that we don't need God and that he is a fabrication then our nation shall truly die.  It dies from within first and the body follows.  Change your hearts, to change your own heart and train others how to, is to change the heart of the nation.

[AsteroidX]

Lets throw out the Constitution: Seems someone has

http://news.yahoo.co...--politics.html

how many proxy/drone wars are we currently in without Congressional approval. Ive lost count.

Edited by AsteroidX, 30 January 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 30 January 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

The Supreme Court disagrees Q.

You are talking District of Colombia VS Heller, I guess. Yes, they ruled that the right of arms is not limited to the use of militia purposes. But in the fine print you might notice that they, with that ruling expanded a little the scope of the second amendment.

Most notably here:

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

And they allude to text and history (most notable) not excluding the right to keep a gun for whatever you feel like. And they justify their interpretation with:

    © The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment

Or in plain English, they did not rule in favor of Miller because of the text of the Constitution but because the right to bear arms was upheld historically and is part of many state constitutions.

But what is most notable in this ruling is the final conclusion that:

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

Which should tell us something about what will happen if there are new laws imposed.

Conclusion: even the Supreme Court ruling is not as cut and dry as some might like to see it.

[aztek]

it isn't cut and dry, but it is clear that militia affiliation, is not needed, which is an argument of most gunhatters. a hog wash argument

[darkmoonlady]

Uncle Sam, on 30 January 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Wow... just wow. You are condemning the people who protect the constitution that allows you to have the freedom of speech, the freedom of privacy, the freedom of happiness. You are condemning your children or children's children to a bleak future because you are a coward and live by selfish motives. So go ahead... give away your rights for safety, because when reality comes crashing down on you hard, you will be begging for help and who is it that will come to save you? That is right, the patriots will come to save you regardless if you been selfish or cursing them.

Yamato, on 30 January 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

The right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with defending your country from a foreign invader.  That's what the well regulated militia (THE MILITARY) is for.   Seems like there is mass misunderstanding with what the 2nd Amendment even means on this board despite multiple posters posting multiple times to clear up any confusion.

This doesn't bode well for the citizens at large who aren't getting these constant lessons.  Kudos to all those who suggested that kids actually get taught the Constitution in school.  It's needed.

Exactly what I was talking about. If you want a gun great have one, you just don't get to have an arsenal based on the idea that "someday some country is going to take over" because you're not saving anyone, the military will be. I get that there are responsible gun owners who respect the Constitution, however using the Constitution to say I can own as many assault rifles as I want and you can't stop me isn't covered. And because it isn't covered you don't get to throw out the Constitution just because you don't like that assault weapons are being regulated. My first post on this thread was about that but it was largely ignored to argue about assault rifles and whining about the whether owning them is covered in the Constitution. My second post was tongue in cheek about the absurdity of people complaining about their guns being taken away so lets just get rid of the Constitution all together. That you didn't get the joke and some really do believe you're going to save the American way because you own an assault rifle? You made my point for me.

[CrimsonKing]

darkmoonlady, on 30 January 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Exactly what I was talking about. If you want a gun great have one, you just don't get to have an arsenal based on the idea that "someday some country is going to take over" because you're not saving anyone, the military will be. I get that there are responsible gun owners who respect the Constitution, however using the Constitution to say I can own as many assault rifles as I want and you can't stop me isn't covered. And because it isn't covered you don't get to throw out the Constitution just because you don't like that assault weapons are being regulated. My first post on this thread was about that but it was largely ignored to argue about assault rifles and whining about the whether owning them is covered in the Constitution. My second post was tongue in cheek about the absurdity of people complaining about their guns being taken away so lets just get rid of the Constitution all together. That you didn't get the joke and some really do believe you're going to save the American way because you own an assault rifle? You made my point for me.

No matter what you say they are not assault rifles!Not fully auto,No 3 round burst option!It is just a rifle with extra plastic on it!Ask the japanese why there leaders wouldnt attack the american mainland!

[AsteroidX]

Your making more sense to me today Darkmoonlady. Unfortunately we have no definition between owning guns and having an arsenal. In calmer times I would completely agree with you but in todays polarized times Im not sure whats needed to ensure the people can maintain the Constitutions integrity. Your comment about the military is spot on. Its a must have to keep the integrity of the Constitution and hopefully when they took there oath to defend the Constitution from invaders foreign and domestic it holds water.

[F3SS]

Frank Merton, on 30 January 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I think there is one thing in the US Constitution that irritates the Hell out of the rest of the world -- the provision that only a "natural born" citizen can be elected President.  Is the US a democracy or not?  Why can't the people elect whomever they want?

Frank Merton, on 30 January 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

This is simple paranoia; scary paranoia.  Why should foreigners who have become citizens be any less loyal than native born?  Probably they are more loyal because they don't take things for granted.

I think, at least I certainly hope, that the messages you post represent a small minority of Americans.

No. It isn't paranoia. I understand someone that has been born outside the US but had lived and been raised here since they were 2 years old might be a perfectly good American citizen capable of the job. The thing is though, a line had to be drawn. Instead of fighting over the technicalities of how long you've been here or at what age you arrived it is far easier to just draw the line at pure citizenship. It saves a lot of headaches. It's also a safeguard because to satisfy the complaint you have drawing a line just wouldn't be just and fair and so no line could be drawn. Without that line, anybody could come over here. I imagine there are  great many people in the world who are intelligent enough and charismatic enough to pull the vote in their favor but being of a foreign country opens the door to too many possible bad scenarios, plots and schemes held by foreign countries. It's better to be safe than sorry. Besides, what's wrong with a country being led by its countrymen? Actually, except for the POTUS it can be. I think anybody is allowed to run for congress or any other elected office in the country and many times those are the people who affect our lives more frequently than the POTUS.
Question for you. Could I run for president or whatever you have in your country? If the answer is no I would understand. I expect it. Also are we the only country in the world that insists its top leader be a citizen? I doubt it.

Frank Merton, on 30 January 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I've been doing some reading about the Second Amendment and would like to introduce something a little bit different.

As I understand it, all Obama wants to do is regulate guns, not prohibit them.

Now the First Amendment guarantees various things (it's interesting that these basic liberties of the First Amendment don't include guns there, but instead it has to wait for the second).  Among the things the First Amendment guarantees is freedom of speech and of the press.

Does that mean that you can publish absolutely anything you want without consequences?  What about slandering someone, or calling them a criminal when they are an honest citizen?  What about using freedom of speech to deliver a harangue on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night?

Aren't these denials of freedom of speech and the press?

So if they are subject to regulation for public safety, why are guns different?

Near as I can figure free speech trumps #2 and all others because without it we could never speak up about our grievances in defense of our liberties. And since we are first and foremost a civil people we want and like to try to solve things by action of voice. Without our voices we have no say and when we have no say we are essentially slaves and slavery will only amount to violence somehow at some point whether through practice or uprising but likely both. So the second amendment while of utmost importance is ultimately our last resort as a backup plan. It's plan B. Free speech is plan A.

And thanks for clearing up your background Frank from Vietnam. I too have been curious. One last question? How the F don't you have an F?

[F3SS]

darkmoonlady, on 30 January 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Exactly what I was talking about. If you want a gun great have one, you just don't get to have an arsenal based on the idea that "someday some country is going to take over" because you're not saving anyone, the military will be. I get that there are responsible gun owners who respect the Constitution, however using the Constitution to say I can own as many assault rifles as I want and you can't stop me isn't covered. And because it isn't covered you don't get to throw out the Constitution just because you don't like that assault weapons are being regulated. My first post on this thread was about that but it was largely ignored to argue about assault rifles and whining about the whether owning them is covered in the Constitution. My second post was tongue in cheek about the absurdity of people complaining about their guns being taken away so lets just get rid of the Constitution all together. That you didn't get the joke and some really do believe you're going to save the American way because you own an assault rifle? You made my point for me.

Your argument is void anyways. We already aren't allowed to own assault rifles. Assault rifles as you know them are not the definition of assault rifles. Please WIKI it. The term as you use it is a liberal/media contrived definition hijacking of what actually constitutes an assault rifle.

[CrimsonKing]

I have not personally ever owned any "assault" weapons,just regular rifles and pistols.I have known people who have owned "assault" weapons and have let me shoot them and believe it or not that wiley weapon not once tried to run off from me and do anything stupid.If people are responsible with them and are law abiding citizens they should be allowed to own them!1 thing i do agree with all "assault" weapons should be registered just like pistols.

[F3SS]

It is the word assault that is used purposefully and primarily as a means of scaring people.

[CrimsonKing]

-Mr_Fess-, on 30 January 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

It is the word assault that is used purposefully and primarily as a means of scaring people.

Exactly!All weapons knives,bats,clubs,brass knuckles,etc are assault weapons!Never seen anyone give another a hug,kiss,or handshake with a weapon of any kind.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 30 January 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

It is the word assault that is used purposefully and primarily as a means of scaring people.

While true, when the automatic gas operated rifle was invented by the Germans in '44 that is what they called it (Sturmgewehr), and since then the name has stuck. Irrelevant of what one feels when he/she hears the name.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

CrimsonKing, on 30 January 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Ask the japanese why there leaders wouldnt attack the american mainland!

I thought the "there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass" was a myth, they didn't invade the mainland because they thought they wouldn't need to.