[Gun Control] Obama: "Examine Your Conscience"

My rebuttal: For him to talk a leisurely walk down the street to the National Archives where he can view the original copy of the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment.

 

But he isn't proposing doing away with the second amendment. Restricting the types of guns and magazines isn't doing away with the second amendment.

 

Is that your legal opinion? Because I, and millions of others completely disagree. I won't get into an argument here, because we've beat that dead horse many times over. I was simply responding to my President trying to lecture me on something I personally feel he has no say in.

 

Which the Founding Fathers would have worded differently if they had foreseen madmen taking military-type assault rifles and turning kids at school into meat.

Obama ain't going after all guns. That toothpaste is out of the tube. Assault weapons, assault ammunition, and universal background checks.

 

Which sits right next to the original Constitution with this curious passage: three fifths of all other Persons.

Of course, that's not a good example because the Founders did not need to compromise on the 2nd Amendment. It is only at issue because gun nuts have twisted the meaning over the last 50 or so years.

 

Interesting. Can you name any stated proposal of his that violates the 2nd Amendment?

 

In unrelated news, Obama signs a new bill:

 

you speak for the founding fathers?

 

So now you know what the founding fathers would have done 230 years later?

Also "military-type assault rifles," you mean a semiautomatic rifle which is less powerful than the most popular hunting rifles?

 

see, if you don't agree with him you lack a conscience

a more tactful variant of the Piers Morgan line of argument

 

I didn't say he had one. I said he is lecturing me on something he doesn't have a right to do so... because that document at the National Archives.

I'm not going to get in to an argument here as I stated, because we all know that I'm in the minority on this BBS.

 

So the logic is, as long as they don't remove all the freedom it gives us, it is still there? Well, I guess we can go ahead and remove most of the forth amendment too, it's no big deal if they search us whenever they want right? Oh look, they already do that in NYC where minorities are spot-checked for no damn good reason.

If you remove any part of it, you might as well remove it all. Because they'll come for it eventually. Being conquered by attrition is still being conquered.

 

Weird. Last I looked, the amendment that comes before the one you refer to specifically guarantees him that right to lecture you about anything he wants.

 

Touché. I guess I should say he has the right to do so, but the document means he can kiss my ass.

 

So I ask again: do you then believe the government should not restrict your ownership of nuclear or biological weapons? And do you believe the government has no right to prevent a criminal or mentally ill person from owning a weapon?

 

I've answered these questions 100 times over the various other treads. Enjoy.

 

great point, Commodore.

He's clearly trying to frame his argument

smart people see right through this cheap tactic

 

Can you point me to some of these answers? Because as far as I recall, the only other time I've asked recently is here:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=231920&page=5

On January 10th at 10:28am. After that, you disappeared from the thread for 2 days, only to post a random video a few days later and then nothing else.

Or, do you mind summarizing your view on this issue for those of us who missed your other answers?

 

I've answered the questions and stated my beliefs man times, and sorry I don't give a rats ass if you're left wanting for me.