Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

OBUMMER GUNS


Recommended Posts

There is absolutely no doubt that violence is concentrated mostly in inner cities. The formula for violence is poverty, drugs and lack of education. All of which are concentrated in the minority neighborhoods.

So, which part of the legislation do you feel is out of bounds? We know that most of the "gun control" elements have about zero chance of passing, it is just a wish list as and even the EO's don't affect current or future gun owners at all. Is there any way to discuss the specifics of the legislation here without going off on some fantasy tangent?

Our president has laid it at America's feet and openly stated it has no chance unless the American people champion it. Whether you agree with the legislation or not you must stand in respect of the way it has been presented. And even the most liberal of Democrats are cool on it. It seems like they are treating it like they should....something that was more emotional baggage whipped up by the media after shooting than something that the American people want.

Sure the cameras are on one or two radical faces. Dont let that dog and pny show fool you. The media is simply trying to keep the fire hot to sell papers.

The Democrats today are just not anti-gun. Sure there are a few but they don't represent even a fraction of the lawmakers. Despite the best efforts to paint Democrats as "radical liberals" that is just not true. The vast majority of Dems are supported by moderate conservatives these days and there is no stomach for anything extreme on either end. As the extreme voice on the right does not speak for the average Republican neither does the nutcase liberal stereotype describe today's Democrat.

Despite the knee jerk reaction I see no realistic threat to anyone here. Just a political reaction to a tragic event. Not even Al Franken will endorse the idea as it stands. It is a lot like fretting over the Mayan Calendar.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a constitutional issue, At least not yet. And there is nothing in the legislation as it stands that could be interpreted as such. If there is lets hear what it may be!

A few laymen see any gun legislation as somehow violating the constitution by their narrow and unique perspective. But since one group's interpretation of the constitution means squat then it is sort of a moot point. We have a process by which constitutional issues are resolved. And they are not resolved by narrow opinions in the peanut gallery.

It is not an infringement of rights to limit weaponry at all. If you asked the founders of they intended to include cannons in the second amendment they would answer emphatically "YES!" But we all agree that we cant own artillery and that is not an infringement of our right to keep and bear. Likewise "arms" can include nukes. But there seems to be no outcry from the NRA on that. So limmiting "arms" within the spirit of the framers has been accepted for several generations now. And there is no attempt to infringe upon a persons right to keep and bear. Nothing in the proposed legislation would do that. SO the argument that somehow the proposals infringe on the constitution are not true.

It is one thing to simply say it does. It is entirely another to explain how it does. And that is the hurdle that folks will meet with when they claim they are having their constitutional rights taken from them. Can anyone here explain how this proposed legislation would violate their rights if it were passed? If they can then they really have nothing to worry about do they? If this is true then it wiill be struck down constitutionally. That is just how our system works.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, the 2nd Amendment as with the Rest of the Constitution was written in 6th Grade English for a Reason.

There is no Interpretation required.

There were NO Limits set.

Any Infringement is a Infringement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, this is being used as much more than a constitutional issue. It is very sad that those kids were killed but Obama is using it to advance his anti-gun agenda and, perhaps more importantly, direct attention away from the US's huge financial problems -- overspending and the debt.

Having those kids on stage with him was tacky at best and I find the fact that obama didn't even mention violent movies, TV shows and games that are being hawked to kids to be very troubling.

He promised a "fair and balanced approach" to the deficit and didn't deliver. He hasn't delivered on this violence issue either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Homefire!

You seem to completely skirt the issue that was presented. The constitution is CONTINUOUSLY interpreted and our laws are measured against it every day. And if our constitution needed no interpretation I know twelve judges that would be out of a job.

If there are any aspects of the proposed legislation that you feel is unconstitutional lets discuss them! And why you feel that way! How are your rights being infringed by the proposals?

Again, just saying it is contrary to the constitution does no good. At some point any issue that you think infringes must be defined. A man must illustrate how it violates his rights. Can you define one aspect of the proposed legislation that infringes on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

I just cant see where pointing at the constitution could be of any help here. It is simply not a winning fight. At least not as the legislation has been proposed at this point.

Please help me understand how you believe it is!

And please help me understand how Obama's proposal has ANY chance of becoming law. He admits himself that it is a token gesture even proposing it!

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, this is being used as much more than a constitutional issue. It is very sad that those kids were killed but Obama is using it to advance his anti-gun agenda and, perhaps more importantly, direct attention away from the US's huge financial problems -- overspending and the debt.

Having those kids on stage with him was tacky at best and I find the fact that obama didn't even mention violent movies, TV shows and games that are being hawked to kids to be very troubling.

He promised a "fair and balanced approach" to the deficit and didn't deliver. He hasn't delivered on this violence issue either.

BINGO! This is a diversion. It benefitted every politician in Washington on both sides of the aisle at a time they were all looking (and acting) like ninnies.

The entire issue is a political hand job. Nothing more.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interpretation is only needed because folks writing the Laws can't read 6th grade English. Or!

They keep Interpreting the Constitution to say what They wish it said or Ignore what it does say.

It's not that uncommon for the Supreme Court to Go Contrary with the Constitution for there SO Called better for the System Philosophy's.

The NRA has a Bad Habit of Conceding some Issues to Appease some Law makers.

My take is if Any of the Proposed Laws make it through it's too Many.

Any Infringement is Too Many.

Back Ground checks a exception providing Records are not Maintained.

Then comes a Follow Up Background Check every Year to Maintain your right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Any form of Information providing Firearm Ownership is not acceptable.

I too think the Congress will squash most of the proposed laws but some will make it through.

Now Mental Health is the Buzz of the Day.

The Notion of VETs coming home seeking Help for Bad Dreams being Marked as a NO GO on a Background Check is not right.

Where will they draw the line??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They draw the line with legislation and laws. We are constantly drawing new lines not only on gun issues but on every other constitutional front. That is just the way it is done.

I share your concerns and I especially agree that the "mental issues" could be a slippery slope at some point in the future. How that is defined means EVERYTHING! But we have to draw the line somewhere. I think where we have it drawn right now is fine. If "bad dreams" were on the list then yes, that is unconstitutional. But the unvarnished truth is that "bad dreams" are not on the list. And what they are asking for, in my opinion, is not unconstitutional.

Just to make it clear I don't support a new assault weapons ban, nor the ban on the sales of magazines over 10 rounds. I don't. But it darn sure is not unconstitutional under the laws of this land. In your opinion you may think it SHOULD be unconstitutional. That is something that is your alone and I certainly respect that. But so far the second amendment just is not the fight. The fight is over the bill and the executive orders. That will be fought in congress. And it has zero chance of passing.


So I just do not see where anyone can make a constitutional issue out of it. It is just politics as usual.

They cant figure out how to lead this country or manage the resources and they are all in some sort of a pickle. The only thing they have left is to try and keep us busy fighting over idealistic crapola while things get worse. They have REAL stuff to deal with like budget, jobs, and stopping the deterioration of this country. When they cant seem to deliver the REAL GOODS they throw out some issue that will cause an automatic, pre-conditioned reaction from the most vocal group of the times.

...And that be the fellows who wear the constitution like a badge. I hate to say it, but you are being used. Obama knows he cant get this passed. Why do you suppose he is doing it anyway? He is enraging the right once again over ideological issues. Why do you suppose he is doing that? It is like he is pushing a button and making the far right fringes dance to wild carnival music. It is causing everyone who does not like carnival music to abandon the party.

Write your representative and assure him you will vote his fanny out of office if he supports ANY type of gun control. That is where the fight is at. It will not be much of a battle and everyone knows it. Register to vote and vote in LOCAL AND STATE elections. This is where people have the power, especially over their tax money and how it is spent. And completely forget about the old paradigm that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. That is simply not how America votes anymore. Times are a-changin'. All that stuff died with Saddam Hussein.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just love hoe actors say such intelligent things. Danny Glover just came out and claimed the second amendment was created so slave owners could enforce their will upon slaves........DUH?

Big time diversion.... Takes front stage when jobs, Algeria, Bengazi, Fast and Furious, spending, mounting debt, Iranian and N. Korea nukes, should be at the top of the items needing immediate attention. However, this diversion is still far to dangerous to the Constitution to be considered as meaningless.....

Edited by El Dorado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...