Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

How Obama will eliminate the second amendment

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Grayhawk, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. Providence


    Feb 5, 2011
    Woodstock, GA
    Bados, hang around for a while and listen to the arguments for a traditional reading of the second amendment. One of the original reasons for the second amendment was as a protection from a Government that turns tyrannical. This isn't a tin foil hat type concept. It is established Constitutional thought. The reason you are getting flack is because your argument is the same emotionally based argument the groups like the Brady Campaign use. You are getting grouped in with the anti-gun crowd. You aren't one of those kind are you?

    Please vote! It's that important!
  2. 4Rules


    Mar 11, 2012
    That was the original intent: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    They are supposed to be dangerous.

  3. copo9560


    Feb 21, 2012

    While I disagree with your position, I fully agree that you should have the right to say what you want. All the Bill of Rights are important and really work together.

    Only Ammendment I would want to change would be 17th but that is a different arguement.
  4. An AR-15 or an AK-47 isn't an assault rifle until you assault something with it. Until then, it's just a firearm.
  5. CharlieDelta127


    Sep 10, 2012
    You don't know my skill level, or others skill level. Don't put the label of "dangerous" on me, or any other responsible right minded gun owner....
  6. Clutch Cargo

    Clutch Cargo Amsterdam Haze

    Nov 29, 2010
    A commander in chief giving authority to world governments would well.
  7. janice6

    janice6 Silver Member

    Apr 4, 2006
    The new load from DU has arrived.
  8. WheelGunFan


    Jul 18, 2012
    The courts and those of us here have different meaning for "infringed"

    The way Obama will do it is just like Obamacare.

    1) He will use the Fed's right to tax the crap out of everything. Go after black powder and primers and tax the crap out of them doubling or more the cost of bullets

    2) Next, he will simply have another tax on guns at point of sales or simply tax the crap out of accessories.

    3) He can charge another tax to states using NICS, forcing states to raise fees on firearm purchases

    4) Use the EPA (or try again) to regulate lead in bullets thus raising the price of bullets by making it an environmental issue. WA has already done this for hunting it will just be expanded.

    None of this is considering infringing on 2a rights.

    Lastly, they will make press for liberal SCOTUS appointments to "defend obortion" but it will be a back door to load the SCOTUS such that the next fight (possible Maryland) will further limit gun rights

    The government has the unlimited ability to make things more difficult and more expensive and none of these will fit the legal definition of infringing our rights -- because, they have the right tax and the right to make process difficult.

    Don't believe me, see what it takes to get a gun in D.C. or an out of state permit in MA.

    Yes, he will not take 2a away and will not try, he will just make it more expensive
  9. WheelGunFan


    Jul 18, 2012
    Even if we all agree with you and obviously we do not, here is your problem.

    What do you want them to take away next? If we say, sure, take away all the AW. They say great, then guess what, then they will want something else to take away, and they will want more until we are reduced to nothing anyone will want. The Brady Campaign does not simply disband and walk away. -- see the UK for reference.

    In this country we have lost all ability to compromise or be logical. The left fights with emotions and no facts so you cannot have a logical reasoned argument. If there was a way reasonable people could come together and make sure the line would move no further -- Oh, wait -- we have that, its call the Bill of Rights and Constitution. The anti-gun crowd wants one and one thing -- ban all guns. Their idea of "reasonable" is to have no guns.

    BUT, the issue is you fall for the "good king" syndrom. While "THIS" guy may be a good guy, how do you know the next guy who comes along will also be good -- you don't! There is no way. Look at Mexico, they have the right to bear arms in the constitution -- but nobody can really own a gun -- because you are not even allowed to own a gun store. The people allowed the right to be taken away. Today Obama, tomorrow, the next gun grabber.

    This is why we have the bill of rights because our founders knew when they were gone some day in the future, there could be someone who would try and take those rights away. Even Jefferson said that the fight must first be at the ballet box. Even the NRA says far too many gun owners do not vote.

    Gun owners have to draw a line. Between Federal laws, state laws, county laws, town laws there are more than enough laws -- it stops here! If the same darn background checks and requirements are ok in my home state, why the hell is it when I go over the border to the next town, county or state all of a sudden, that FBI check is no longer valid? What changed? Did they use a different database? Nope, its how the gun grabbers contain you from carrying across the USA.

    Even president Obama said that its not the AK-47s that are shooting up Chicago.

    Does anyone need a full auto rifle -- no! But, the people who want it and are responsible should have one. Tell all the people at Knob Creek this past weekend why they cannot have their machine guns. Please explain to me why you cannot be trusted with an assault rifle or machine gun. You want them to take it away from you so tell me why you cannot in your admission cannot be trusted?

    One more item, the police should not have these weapons either given the number of times they have shot or killed innocent people and dogs in no knock raids, they have far too much power already they don't need more. When was the last time the police have had to use full auto to clear a room. Oh, the boogymen terrorist are also a sorry excuse for all the military gear they now own. Pre 9/11 they did not have it and did not need it, now? Now, we have SWAT teams in towns in NJ with fewer than 4000 people.

    You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to say your opinion sucks! We, the people are the govt and we must tell our representatives enough is enough.

    We showed Al Gore the door when he wanted our guns, time to show Obama the door too. In the end, the more we give govt, the more they can and will take away.
  10. cheapshot


    Oct 27, 2011
    Me either. I'll respect the rights of others as long as they respect mine.
  11. BADOS


    Oct 4, 2012
    I understand what you all are saying and respect your view and I also know my view is unpopular here in this forum. However, it's my view. But, that being said, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?
  12. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    :laughabove: :rofl: The Second Amendment wasn't/isn't about hunting. Surprise right? :rofl: The Second Amendment is about The People having the ability to defend themselves against a standing army in the case the government turns tyrannical. I know it's a hard truth for GRABBERS to admit to but the truth none the less. It's as necessary today, if not more so, then it was then.

    You want the laws reassess? I fully agree. There is only ONE law necessary when it comes to firearms. It is illegal to commit a VIOLENT "CRIME" using a firearm.
  13. jakebrake

    jakebrake cracker

    Jan 11, 2011
    too close to philly
    was just thinking that.
  14. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    What you need to realize is that guns don't equal crime or violence. Crime and violence have always and will always be with us. You also need an education. The places with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violence including gun violence. Places with the most lenient gun control have lower crime, including violent crime rates. Don't take my word for it do some non bias research. Start by reading John Lots Jr. More Guns Less Crime. Take a look at the violent crime rates in Komyfornia and Shatcago and the like.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  15. wiscmike


    Aug 28, 2012
    As we all remember in school the 3 branches of government, these are supposed to be checks & balances. But if you control the Executive and Judicial branches you control our delicate government. One more supreme court appointment will seal the deal for years to come maybe even decades.
    Obama is QUOTED as saying he feels the Constitution had deep flaws then he took an oath to uphold it, what do you believe. He keeps talking about colonialism, what gives with this guy, maybe you should watch the movie 2016 and find out. I won't comment again but he will strip the 2nd amendment in the next 4 years through the two branches. You think I made this up here is the link, in his own voice yes, it is not fake. Nothing but the facts. [ame=""]Barack Obama Constitution quote IN CONTEXT! - YouTube[/ame]
  16. digilo


    Apr 27, 2010
    Ever heard of recreational shooting?

    You don't need 500 hp to get to 70 mph, but the Vettes and Mustangs are available with that level of power. And that level of power in the hands of other than Race and Competition drivers is dangerous (hee).

    That being said, no, I don't think Obama will do anything to expand gun control. He didn't in his first 4 years.

    No it does not.

    Do you get a background check every time you buy a car? Last time I looked, cars kill way more people than guns, so if we want to background check the most dangerous object, it would be cars. I just don't want those dangerous cars in the hands of nuts.

    Background check does nothing for gun control. Criminals can get guns any number of ways, while all it really does is inconvenience the average good guy. I hate waiting on a BG check to see if I'm going to pass or be delayed, and nothing is more galling than having to wait on something you've just bought and is right there in front of you.

    But lets background check all dangerous things, because we don't want them in the hands of nuts, now do we?

    ball gags
    duct tape
    pepper spray
    oven cleaner
    swimming pools

    I mean, how much of a nanny state do you want? Drones overhead watching to see if an unregistered gun with a mag that holds too many bullets of illegal hollow-points might be wielded by a nut?
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  17. wiscmike


    Aug 28, 2012
    <<That being said, no, I don't think Obama will do anything to expand gun control. He didn't in his first 4 years.>>

    There is a great and logical reason why he has not expanded gun control in his first and hopefully only 4 years. If he had he would be losing probably 45 out of 50 states right now.

    The 2nd amendment is not about hunting rights. read it. I get tired of hearing the liberals say well you don't go hunting with a pistol. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment I ask them, and they shut up.
  18. engineer151515


    Nov 3, 2003
    The Second Amendment was designed to protect you from a tyrannical government. You know, the people who will use the police and military against you. Or, conversely, the people you will rush to aid in the event they are overwhelmed in the defense of your liberties. Finally, it is for when police and military are unable to help you. Having been through devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and aftershocks, I can tell you on authority, that sometimes you are totally on your own against looters and gangs looking for an easy score. (I'd include riots in that category too, but I haven't lived through one of those personally)

    So, if you are referring to my semi automatic AR15 (s) or my semi automatic Yugo AK47 underfolder with 30 round mags, then yes, I do need it.

    BTW - assault rifles are fully automatic weapons which are restricted in access by a Tax Stamp, background check, local approvals and limited supply (registered before 1986). So, in a sense, you already have your wish.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  19. Skeet732

    Skeet732 NRA Life Member

    Dec 6, 2009
    Rhode island
    I have no patience for this convo any more, sorry, I'm just too old for it. You want my guns, come and get them. Bring some friends and some ammo.
  20. PVolk


    Oct 2, 2009
    Hey, I was there too! Got to shoot a full auto Glock 17 and loved all 6 seconds of it! :supergrin:
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012