Like a dictator, Obama threatens unprecedented gun control by executive order

I'm not afraid in the slightest, as it PROVES my point.

"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."

The 2nd amendment is there to protect us, not to allow us to shoot deer.

Do you even know what you are talking about? The 3rd amendment is for quartering soldiers, the 4th amendment protects you from illegal searches and seizures. Learn your amendments buddy, there are only 27 of them.

 

I think he only gets to be a dictator is he succeeds. He hasn't made any executive orders yet to curtail gun rights, so we haven't seen yet whether he'll get smacked down by the Supreme Court. Maybe he's an aspiring dictator.

 

I am OK with any member of a "well regulated militia" having access to firearms. That would exclude nearly every private citizen and every single person in an organization currently referred to as a "militia."

Basically, you would be talking about law enforcement and military personnel if you go by the letter of the second amendment.

 

Do you know the definition of militia?

1 : part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Meaning any able bodied person can be considered part of a militia. I can call myself a militia, and be militia.

 

It seems you have a dim view of the Founding Fathers. They weren't a bunch of ignorant fools trying to solve their immediate problems at the expense of future generations. They were well educated on past government and economical failures and set up a system, which has its own flaws, to protect the interests of the citizens. Their idea was to keep government small and prevent the two headed beast that only pretends to care for the interest of its people.

If you don't think they had gun control issues back then, then you are clearly misguided. They clearly understood what happens when the elite few control the weapons and the defenseless are not allowed to arm themselves. We are fortunate enough to live in a time when the world is stable. If we cant think back two generations when the world was at war, then I don't think we should be making legislation that will effect every generation in the future.

 

Are you part of the organized armed forces of a country? Nope.

Are you declared by law as being subject to call to military service? In theory yes, but in practical terms (i.e. are you bringing your own weaponry to the fight?), nope.

Is this self-declared one-man-militia of yours well-regulated? Nope.

 

Founding fathers made it quite clear that the reason we are to bear arms is to protect ourselves from two things

Government Tyranny

To protect themselves in-case 75% of the public wants to outlaw guns whilst 25% doesn't

I don't own guns but it seems reasonable to understand that gun people people would want to keep semi-autos as handguns<Semi_Autos

 

I have a very dim view of people who manufacture their own versions of history to serve their own poliltical beliefs - irrespective of how many dead kindergarteners it helps them to forget.

There isn't a single factual assumption in your opinion that is valid, even when you're playing the moronic mug's game of "WTFWTFFD" that is the keystone of nimrod internet wannabe jurists everywhere. All for the completely absurd and idiotic end that you are teaching. Good thing most of the country disagrees.

 

Also did anyone watch the video I just posted, Violent crime has dropped 50% within the last 20 years

 

To me. . .it is not about guns
IT is about circumventing the process

I might like this result
but when the next president does something similar
that we don't like. . . . i will be upset

How will you b**** then?
I know we did not like some of the executive orders bush did
How is this different? because you happen to agree with this one?
Government needs to be consistant
and the expansion of Presidential power . . . IMO . . .maybe getting out of hand.

Rocket River

 

What's that you say? It doesn't matter because your bringing up of hypothetical problems like a future government gone mad with power don't matter in comparison to addressing of current issue of the ridiculous amount of violent gun death in this country? Is that what you said? Speak up I can't hear you.

 

What if the executive order doesn't infringe on someone's right to bear arms? What if it simply changes the process to do so?

So you believe this to be absolute, with no regulation or restrictions of any kind? That I have the right to own a nuke? That criminals and mentally ill people cannot be barred from having weapons of any kind?

 

To an extent but it is more complicated that that. Federalist Paper 29 explains the nature of the militia as referred to in the 2nd Amendment. There it explains that the purpose of the militia is for the common defense of the states and not necessarily individuals.
Keep in mind that the same Founding Fathers that gun rights people are upholding didn't hesitate to crush armed citizen revolts during the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions. In both cases they called up other militia to do so.

That seems more like a call to rebellion than a case of self-defense.

I am not saying I don't understand why someone would want a semi auto handgun or rifle but pointing out that the Constitution doesn't prevent restrictions on the type and regulation of arms. If it didn't then people could own fully automatic machine guns.

 

Good luck with this one - It's become an article of faith among interweb gun morons that all you have to do is produce a copy of Heller and then you are entitled to instant, unrestricted, unmolested, inviolable rights to purchase, own and maintain a Seawolf-class Nuclear attack submarines with the full complement of nuclear-warhead equipped Tomahawk cruise missiles...for TARGET SHOOTING. IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION - AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE FACISM!!

 

We must not do anything about the mass murders of innocent citizens and children we are seeing NOW because we need to protect ourselves against the microscopic chance of some future violent dictator taking over America, with guns that stand zero chance against the might of a military that spends more money than the rest of the world combined.

Hooray for wingnut logic.

 

First question: How many countries have never had a violent insurrection once established on a wide scale? Answer: Zero

Second question: Do you honestly believe there will never come a time when society and the infrastructure of this country will break down?

Do you really think anyone in this country fears a dictator rising up and controlling a military that is purely volunteered? (answer is no)

What would happen if our fuel supply infrastructure came to a complete halt for one day? one week? one month? That will never happen, right?

The reality is that our modern day society is fragile. Just because we sit atop of the world now does not give us the only exception in history to be impervious against failure. If you feel taking up everyones weapons is a way to make yourself feel safer against those hoards of big bad psychopaths who can only use guns to hurt you, then that is your prerogative. If a break down in society scares you, then feel free to stock up weapons and food.

What remains is the 2nd amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves responsibly from our fears, whether that fear is of England trying to take back its colony, or native americans taking back their land, dictatorships, breakdown in societies, intruders, hunting or for sport.

 

The Simpsons have sucked for the last decade and while not that funny last week's episode did make a good point for those stocking up on guns, food and etc.. preparing for the breakdown of society. Unfortunately it's not on Hulu yet so can't link to it.

 

nobody is reasonably protected unless they have the following---

http://www.businessinsider.com/zombie-apocalypse-survival-kit-2012-7?op=1

you think your steel arms will save you?!?!

 

Breaking story: Two just got shot in a California HS.

I have been neutral to gun laws but this is getting out of hand. Obama needs to do something about this. It would be irresponsible of him not to take any action.

 

Do you know the definition of well regulated? According to your own definition, men over a certain age as well as all women cannot legally bear arms.