Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2997815
Typical, you vote on how it affects YOU. not how it would affect others or the country as a whole.....thus you are a progressive lib.
You support embryonic stem cell research, abortion, taxing the rich at an exuberant amount, global warming and thus in turn anything "green", The banning of assault weapons and other guns, support gay marriage, Want the homeowners in foreclosure bailed out, and support government funded and provided healthcare for all...........what exactly are you NOT a proggresive liberal on. I am curious.

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2997711
You want to be an American that protects your Constitution? GET ELECTED. VOTE FOR SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH YOUR VIEWPOINTS.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996883
Come on. That has nothing to do what I'm talking about. Vici is talking about starting a Revolution in the event Congress cahnges any part of the Constitution he agreed with. That WAS NOT what the founders fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean. Please don't tell me you think that's the case.
Why did they debate making the Second Amendment first if not to allow the people to protect all their rights from all enemies foreign and domestic?
Like was said, if you read the events leading up to the Constitution and Declaration it is clear. If you read Adams, Madison and Jefferson it becomes clear. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2997815
Typical, you vote on how it affects YOU. not how it would affect others or the country as a whole.....thus you are a progressive lib.
You support embryonic stem cell research, abortion, taxing the rich at an exuberant amount, global warming and thus in turn anything "green", The banning of assault weapons and other guns, support gay marriage, Want the homeowners in foreclosure bailed out, and support government funded and provided healthcare for all...........what exactly are you NOT a proggresive liberal on. I am curious.
I never said I agreed with homeowner's who couldn't afford the house they bought to be bailed out. I do understand what Obama is trying to do with the bailouts of the banks (go read your other thread for that answer). Global warming? Yea, there's evidence that global warming is occurring. The question is whether it's just a normal cycle of the Earth, or if it's manmade. Government funded healthcare? I like the idea of being offered the same medical plans that are afforded to the military and government employees. But I don't have any issues with paying my part. I have a friend who is in civil service. She pays a third of what I pay for healthcare, and pretty much gets the same protection as me. Why can't I get the same plan as her? As far as assault weapons, go back and read my comments. Based on the '94 ban, there's really only a select few of weapons that could be banned. None of which a normal citizen really needs. Don't know where you came up with the idea I'd want to ban all guns. I've probably owned more guns than you ever have at one point in time. Taxing the rich? I say tax everyone the same amount. Flat tax. Get rid of income tax altogether.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2997780
Congress can propose to change the Constitution but cant ignore it.Article V
Bionic try reading it and the history that lead up to it and then read some more.Apparently you have not.Find out what our forefathers where fighting against.They werent just thinking about England,they where talking about things like, tyranny,liberty,sovereignty,GOD given rights........
While writting the Constitution ,Bill of Rights,Declaration of Independence.they where also thinking about future generations and giving us the tools to remain sovereign ,in charge of our own government,not the other way around.
These views "YOU" have do not reflect what the US Constitution say, so says the US Supreme Court and the politicians in Washington that havent yet made it a sport to trample the Constitution and most of the people of the USA.
So either you are a Progressive Liberal or best case scenario just ignorant of fact.
Ahh But Grasshopper, CONGRESS CAN'T CHANGE IT. They can propose changes but 3/4ths of the states must approve that change.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2998274
Why did they debate making the Second Amendment first if not to allow the people to protect all their rights from all enemies foreign and domestic?
Like was said, if you read the events leading up to the Constitution and Declaration it is clear. If you read Adams, Madison and Jefferson it becomes clear. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.
You answered your own question. Look at the events that occurred before they started drafting those documents. This country just got out of a war with England. You still had Loyalists in this country. No one had a comfort level yet of who were their friends, and who were their enemies. The country was still unstable, with no definable direction or basis of law. There were still uncharted territories right in their own backyard. They had no clue who lived there, and what their intentions were. How stable was the law enforcement back then prior to writing these documents? What was done to someone who stole your horse, or violated your wife? The 2nd Amendment was created to insure the citizenry of the New America had the ability to protect themselves from these unknowns, and the possibility of future attacks by England after we pretty much gave them the High Hard One. Also, since no one really knew how this new 'Democratic Society' would work, the people wanted assurances that they had means to protect themselves in case it just turned out to be the same type of government they just fought to get rid of. So your logic states that we need the 2nd Amendment and the ability to protect ourselves from the government in case they change us from a Democratic society to a Socialist society? Is that what you're afraid of? Do you honestly think that with today's society, that the majority of Americans in this country would ever let that be allowed?

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2998314
Ahh But Grasshopper, CONGRESS CAN'T CHANGE IT. They can propose changes but 3/4ths of the states must approve that change.

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2997780
Congress can propose to change the Constitution but cant ignore it.Article V
Yes sir, thats what I meant.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998325
You answered your own question. Look at the events that occurred before they started drafting those documents. This country just got out of a war with England. You still had Loyalists in this country. No one had a comfort level yet of who were their friends, and who were their enemies. The country was still unstable, with no definable direction or basis of law. There were still uncharted territories right in their own backyard. They had no clue who lived there, and what their intentions were. How stable was the law enforcement back then prior to writing these documents? What was done to someone who stole your horse, or violated your wife? The 2nd Amendment was created to insure the citizenry of the New America had the ability to protect themselves from these unknowns, and the possibility of future attacks by England after we pretty much gave them the High Hard One. Also, since no one really knew how this new 'Democratic Society' would work, the people wanted assurances that they had means to protect themselves in case it just turned out to be the same type of government they just fought to get rid of. So your logic states that we need the 2nd Amendment and the ability to protect ourselves from the government in case they change us from a Democratic society to a Socialist society? Is that what you're afraid of? Do you honestly think that with today's society, that the majority of Americans in this country would ever let that be allowed?
You just answered your own question,the 2nd amendment is a final line of defense from a "ANY" oppressive government.
To answer your very last question ,No because we have the the right to remove those who would try this by force if necessary.This is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998311
I never said I agreed with homeowner's who couldn't afford the house they bought to be bailed out. I do understand what Obama is trying to do with the bailouts of the banks (go read your other thread for that answer). Global warming? Yea, there's evidence that global warming is occurring. The question is whether it's just a normal cycle of the Earth, or if it's manmade. Government funded healthcare? I like the idea of being offered the same medical plans that are afforded to the military and government employees. But I don't have any issues with paying my part. I have a friend who is in civil service. She pays a third of what I pay for healthcare, and pretty much gets the same protection as me. Why can't I get the same plan as her? As far as assault weapons, go back and read my comments. Based on the '94 ban, there's really only a select few of weapons that could be banned. None of which a normal citizen really needs. Don't know where you came up with the idea I'd want to ban all guns. I've probably owned more guns than you ever have at one point in time. Taxing the rich? I say tax everyone the same amount. Flat tax. Get rid of income tax altogether.

I never said you wanted to ban all guns. You also don't sound like you support Obama's idea for healthcare.....why exactly do you support this guy again? Since everything you have listed are NOT in line with his policies and voting record.

 

[darthtang aw]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/sout...ry/966133.html

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2998348
I never said you wanted to ban all guns. You also don't sound like you support Obama's idea for healthcare.....why exactly do you support this guy again? Since everything you have listed are NOT in line with his policies and voting record.
Actually Obama has stated he wanted to offer the normal citizens the same health benefits the Government employees are provided in his campaign speeches. I don't have to agree with everything the guy is trying to do. There's some things he's promoting I don't agree with. That's why I don't consider myself a hard-core liberal. You guys despise anyone in the Presidency that isn't Republican. If they aren't Ultra Conservative, they're evil.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998401
Actually Obama has stated he wanted to offer the normal citizens the same health benefits the Government employees are provided in his campaign speeches. I don't have to agree with everything the guy is trying to do. There's some things he's promoting I don't agree with. That's why I don't consider myself a hard-core liberal. You guys despise anyone in the Presidency that isn't Republican. If they aren't Ultra Conservative, they're evil.
No, I didn't mind Clinton, at the beginning of his term I truly disliked him, but I didn't mind him after about 6 months...granted he didn't do nearly as much I disagree with as Obama has. I would gladly take JFK again as well...I actually voted for Perot....as well and did not vote for a republican this election.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2998335
You just answered your own question,the 2nd amendment is a final line of defense from a "ANY" oppressive government.
To answer your very last question ,No because we have the the right to remove those who would try this by force if necessary.This is why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Removing the Federal Government back then would've been totally different than it would be today. You can't compare the two. There were only 13 Colonies when the 2nd Amendment was written (maybe less? JOURNEY!) The population was probably less than what's currently residing in New York City and LA. No one knew what to expect, or truly understood what powers those documents gave to both the government and The People. Based on what they just went through with the British, overtaking a newly-formed government like the one they created wouldn't have been very hard to do if they decided to not agree with it. So if Obama and Congress announced tomorrow that they are wiping the Constitution clean (even though we know they couldn't), and they are changing us to a totally Socialistic government, you could march to DC with your arms drawn and do something about it? Wouldn't our entire military service still be beholden to back the President if he decided to do something this radical? You'd never make it to the Virginia border. Like I said Civil War and Armagedon. See how illogical that sounds?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998416
Removing the Federal Government back then would've been totally different than it would be today. You can't compare the two. There were only 13 Colonies when the 2nd Amendment was written (maybe less? JOURNEY!) The population was probably less than what's currently residing in New York City and LA. No one knew what to expect, or truly understood what powers those documents gave to both the government and The People. Based on what they just went through with the British, overtaking a newly-formed government like the one they created wouldn't have been very hard to do if they decided to not agree with it. So if Obama and Congress announced tomorrow that they are wiping the Constitution clean (even though we know they couldn't), and they are changing us to a totally Socialistic government, you could march to DC with your arms drawn and do something about it? Wouldn't our entire military service still be beholden to back the President if he decided to do something this radical? You'd never make it to the Virginia border. Like I said Civil War and Armagedon. See how illogical that sounds?
Must not have ever been in the military or have a very short memory.
Military personnel would be bound by their oath to take action against the president and congress if they tried that.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2998485
Must not have ever been in the military or have a very short memory.
Military personnel would be bound by their oath to take action against the president and congress if they tried that.
No, I avoided the military like the plague when I got out of high school. But of course Nam was still going on, and I wanted nothing to do with that contrived conflict.
Her's the oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The first line goes with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But how do you interpret the last line? What part of 'obey the orders of the President of the United States' am I not understanding? So if the President tells a military officer to shoot anyone that comes near the White House, and that officer is aware of the President's intentions, which comes first - defending the Constitution, or obeying the President? Would he consider the President and all of Congress an 'enemy' because your group disagrees with what they wanted to do? This is ridiculous even to consider something as stupid as this, but you get my point about how someone can interpret a statement.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998416
Removing the Federal Government back then would've been totally different than it would be today. You can't compare the two. There were only 13 Colonies when the 2nd Amendment was written (maybe less? JOURNEY!) The population was probably less than what's currently residing in New York City and LA. No one knew what to expect, or truly understood what powers those documents gave to both the government and The People. Based on what they just went through with the British, overtaking a newly-formed government like the one they created wouldn't have been very hard to do if they decided to not agree with it. So if Obama and Congress announced tomorrow that they are wiping the Constitution clean (even though we know they couldn't), and they are changing us to a totally Socialistic government, you could march to DC with your arms drawn and do something about it? Wouldn't our entire military service still be beholden to back the President if he decided to do something this radical? You'd never make it to the Virginia border. Like I said Civil War and Armagedon. See how illogical that sounds?
Have you not read the Supreme Courts opinion that i posted and quoted?They said then and now are no different.
"It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
This isnt my opinion its the opinion of the Supreme Court.
My GOD man! Read It! All your questions above have been answered by are forefathers and the SCOTUS.
I understand you refuse to accept it ,but it is the Law or the Land.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998516
No, I avoided the military like the plague when I got out of high school. But of course Nam was still going on, and I wanted nothing to do with that contrived conflict.
Her's the oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The first line goes with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But how do you interpret the last line? What part of 'obey the orders of the President of the United States' am I not understanding? So if the President tells a military officer to shoot anyone that comes near the White House, and that officer is aware of the President's intentions, which comes first - defending the Constitution, or obeying the President? Would he consider the President and all of Congress an 'enemy' because your group disagrees with what they wanted to do? This is ridiculous even to consider something as stupid as this, but you get my point about how someone can interpret a statement.
The POTUS takes the same oath,so if he dose not honor his oath to protect , defend and preserve the Constitution then he is in violation of it and is subject to removal.
“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States......"

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2998544
Have you not read the Supreme Courts opinion that i posted and quoted?They said then and now are no different.
"It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
This isnt my opinion its the opinion of the Supreme Court.
My GOD man! Read It! All your questions above have been answered by are forefathers and the SCOTUS.
I understand you refuse to accept it ,but it is the Law or the Land.
You don't get it. Try opening your mind and imagine what it was like living back then. Then compare it today. Two totally different ways of living and thinking. Having the right to shoot someone you disagree with isn't the Law of the Land. What's hilarious is you're so adamant about this, and actually think you would have the possibility to 'defend the Constitution' against the tyrannical Barack Obama. How do you sleep at night?

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998645
You don't get it. Try opening your mind and imagine what it was like living back then. Then compare it today. Two totally different ways of living and thinking. Having the right to shoot someone you disagree with isn't the Law of the Land. What's hilarious is you're so adamant about this, and actually think you would have the possibility to 'defend the Constitution' against the tyrannical Barack Obama. How do you sleep at night?
I dont know ...maybe I do not write in terms that you understand.
Lets take Obama out of this discussion and just stick with the 2nd Amendment.
Lets say Congress wanted to pass a law that targets a group of individuals with a 90% tax because they didnt approve of something they legally did.
And after they do that, they want to limit what you can and cant say.Then they decide hey I like this lets just do away with the whole Constitution ,lets take away the rights of the people.We no longer work for them they now work for us.
Is this something that could never happen?If your answer is no then you havent been paying attention to history or whats going on right under your nose.Nations change in a blink of an eye because the people arent paying attention,or because they think that wont happen here...now ,in this day and age.
If you will go back a read everything i posted that is factual and unedited, you will know what and why we have the 2nd Amendment .I have a feeling you wont or cant understand it because you think the world is warm and rosie,that people dont become power hungry and greedy.I think you actually forgot who our Government works for and what their role is.It isnt to feed us,cloth us,provide shelter for us.........
Im curious,tell me what do you think our governments role is?Do you even know?
Again, i have shown you what some of the Founders said ive shown you what the SCOTUS has said and yet you dont agree that it is the law of the land,and have yet to provide information contrary . The founding fathers have spelled it out for you ,SCOTUS has spelled it out for you,numerous people here have tried to help you understand, but it seems to be futile.
So i dont know what else to tell you.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998516
No, I avoided the military like the plague when I got out of high school. But of course Nam was still going on, and I wanted nothing to do with that contrived conflict.
Her's the oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The first line goes with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But how do you interpret the last line? What part of 'obey the orders of the President of the United States' am I not understanding? So if the President tells a military officer to shoot anyone that comes near the White House, and that officer is aware of the President's intentions, which comes first - defending the Constitution, or obeying the President? Would he consider the President and all of Congress an 'enemy' because your group disagrees with what they wanted to do? This is ridiculous even to consider something as stupid as this, but you get my point about how someone can interpret a statement.
Their first duty is to defend the constitution. It can be assumed that the President and congress are doing the same seeing as how they take an oath that starts the same way. The oath simply reaffirms the civilian control of the military.
It is a well established legal precedent that soldiers are liable for carrying out an illegal act as a result of an order. When I said take action against the President or congress that was wrong now that I have had the chance to think about it. They would be required to simply ignore the order if they thought it was improper.

 

[zoie2]

To think that banning guns would rid us of gun crimes is like thinking there are no drugs because they are illeagle. Making something illeagle, does NOT make them go away.
We need to be harsher on people who break the laws that are already set up.
I think Ben Franklin said it best: Those that would sacrifice freedom for a little safety, deserve neither.