Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Gun-Control Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Obama will eliminate the second amendment (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1445482)

Grayhawk 09-30-2012 11:00

How Obama will eliminate the second amendment
 
If Obama is re-elected he will eliminate the second amendment rights of citizens. He and Hillary will sign the agreement with the United Nations countries to eliminate all firearms for individuals. The UN agreement should be voted on by the US Senate, however if Harry Reid doesn't take it to the Senate floor for a vote it will become law. The administration has the power to sign international agreements and treaties that would become law if Congress doesn't act. If Congress would vote to not accept the agreement then it would not become law. Here is the loophole that would give them the power.
Grayhawk

Schlitz 09-30-2012 11:41

Won't happen.

IhRedrider 10-01-2012 18:21

The up side to this if it was to happen is: No one could deny the true intent of those in power. Then it would be a simple choice of being a sheep or being a wolf.

Grayhawk 10-07-2012 09:17

"Won't Happen."
Thank you for your assurance. However, three Congressmen, and two politcal analysts seem to think it's possible.

Angry Fist 10-07-2012 09:18

Good. I want to get some cheaper blue helmets.

Providence 10-07-2012 09:21

I think it could happen, and I am convinced that Obama wants that. A simple search will reveal their plans.


Please vote! It's that important!

ArtyGuy 10-07-2012 09:42

It won't happen because it would be a treaty and Congress has to vote on treaties. We elect a President, not a king.

wiscmike 10-10-2012 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtyGuy (Post 19493628)
It won't happen because it would be a treaty and Congress has to vote on treaties. We elect a President, not a king.

Once he gets elected he will be appointing a minimum of one more supreme court justice. As we all saw they wrote behind locked doors with NO input from the opposing party and then shoved it though, 2500 page obamacare that IS unconstitutional. He got 1 judge to defect and it was upheld as we all know. If he appoints one more judge he can and has a great chance to sign an executive order and then when it gets to the supreme court they will uphold it. What part of this do we not understand. He even said when he was running that the Constitution was flawed and then swore to uphold it? Someone is not telling the truth here. The 1st ten amendments were supposed to be sacred as they found the Declaration of Independence was a bit vague. They have already trashed the 1st and are trying to trash the 2nd.
Talk about Animal Farm, too bad most haven't read it because it is happening.

TactiCool 10-10-2012 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schlitz (Post 19471147)
Won't happen.

I agree as well, but not so much because I don't think that they want to do it, but rather because it would prove to be unenforceable.

agile_1 10-14-2012 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayhawk (Post 19493548)
"Won't Happen."
Thank you for your assurance. However, three Congressmen, and two politcal analysts seem to think it's possible.

Oh.

Really.

TV talking heads? RW teabagger congressman?

It seems like your serious.

BADOS 10-16-2012 08:24

Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

GlockPride 10-16-2012 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by BADOS (Post 19523306)
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

Troll much? Government plant?

SGT HATRED 10-16-2012 08:36

Delete

SGT HATRED 10-16-2012 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by BADOS (Post 19523306)
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

Seriously?
Next question; Are you american?

wiscmike 10-16-2012 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by BADOS (Post 19523306)
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

I do not doubt the 2nd as well as the 1st amendment will read just like they did before after 4 more years of Obama, it's the interpretation of the amendments by the supreme court that is frightening. One more judge he appoints and he can literally do anything he wants as shown in appointing all those czars who answer to no one in the government except to him.

He, Pelosi and Reid already tried to stuff the 1st amendment down our throats by trying to pass the "fairness" doctrine which would have been anything but fair. Essentially the "fairness doctrine" would have given a few people the right to say who was in violation of it and enforcing it, as in shutting the news service down. Like my Socialist friend told me, "I can't wait till they pass the "fairness" doctrine so they can march in and shut down Fox. How scary is that?

In four years he has divided the country more than any other President.

But you are right, the 1st and 2nd amendment will not get changed literally, just the way the high courts now interpret these two important amendments through their own Socialist eyes.

BADOS 10-16-2012 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlockPride (Post 19523319)
Troll much? Government plant?

Obviouly you don agree with my opinion. I would defend your right to free speech, but you won't for me. So, I guess you defend the 2nd amendment but not the 1st.

BADOS 10-16-2012 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGT HATRED (Post 19523343)
Seriously?
Next question; Are you american?

More of an American than you.

Angry Fist 10-16-2012 10:55

What the **** happened here?

Bren 10-16-2012 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by BADOS (Post 19523306)
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

Your argument isn't really logical. Looking at 1789, the military also used muskets. The purpose of the second amendment was, in its clearest terms, to allow the citizens to act as a military force. It logically follows from your argument that the arms protected by the second amendment would evolve just as the technology of the arms used by the military evolved, given that the founders were obviously aware that technology improves and changes over time. So if you want to go the "they had muskest in 1789" route, the conclusion of the argument is that all weapons, or at least all individual weapons - full auto, grenade launchers, etc., are a constitutionally protected right. You have accomplished no more than a demonstration of the clearest intellectual dishonesty.

wiscmike 10-16-2012 12:35

You want to go that route there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence nor the 1st 10 amendments that gives congress the right to tax its' citizens. That came much later. If you didn't know the War of Independence was fought over TAXES & TARIFFS, the only two reasons. The 1st ten were written because the Declaration was a bit vague and had to solidify our RIGHTS. Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence and the 1st 10 amendments. Read Animal Farm it all may make sense.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.