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

What does the constitution say about semi-automatic weapons?

 

It clearly states: GUNS YA'LL YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWWW!! THIS 'MERICA!!!!!

 

Like a dictator... LIKE A BOSS

 

It's January 10, 2013 and Obama's going to be President for four more years.

Scoreboard bruh.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Yr4tsoIZzE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L-lY_frZdlM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YaXakwslF6Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

It's right next to the word muskets.

 

I have a qualified view of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The Constitution was a big innovation in politics, but it has its problems. I respect the Founding Fathers but also recognize their fallibility. Looking back at the history of this country, I see where they perhaps can have done things better, with hindsight. Deciding to codify a right to guns in an almost immutable document is one place where I'd say they screwed the pooch. They did us all a disservice. I can see why they thought it was a good idea at the time, but it bit us in the ass. It doesn't help any that they've used some awful sentence structure to say what they meant in the Bill of Rights. People have to go and draw crap out of the Federalist Papers just to shed light on what they might have been trying to say.

As for colonial gun control, their experience mostly came from the Old World, where there were restrictions on who was allowed to own a gun, and even registration of weapons built by gunsmiths. In the colonies, however, there was a recognition that people needed guns because of the relative lawlessness, and less fear of insurrection because they were so far away. Sometimes, they even had laws requiring colonists to own guns and a certain amount of ammunition, even arming Indian servants and black slaves. So, it wasn't a colonial experience of gun control that they feared, but an encroachment of English practices.

But, returning to the idea of proof of what the Founding Fathers meant. They seemed to think an armed populace, generally, was a good idea for democracy or at least preservation of the nation. And, they were probably right in the short-term. But they couldn't know what it'd do 200 years hence. They did have the foresight to create a mechanism to change the Constitution, but it's more than the mere Constituion we'd have to overcome to undo what they've done -- it's a cultural change, and even an identity crisis to say that an amendment in the Bill of Rights was a bad idea.

Looking to the future, even 200 years from now, I'm not foreseeing how the guns are going to help us, even or especially in defending ourselves from tyrants or foreign invaders. What was the last insurrection that failed because of a lack of access to small arms? Because we've already implicitly ceded our claim to the big guns. But, Libya's rebellion started in a country that didn't allow guns, and they got a bunch of guns; their problem was getting tanks and artillery. In Syria, they had some handguns -- 3.9 per 100 people -- but they seem to have lots of guns now. They're still getting pounded by a government with gunships and tanks. Syria and Libya wouldn't get very far without these small arms. But, the small arms have a way of showing up in an insurrection, and what people really need are cannon and choppers etc. Unity, peaceful resistance, and general strikes are stronger tools than small arms to resist tyranny. Looking out for my kids and grandkids in a world where America will no longer be the superpower I was born into, will no longer the vibrant economic powerhouse that I know, I want them to not have guns. They make things worse in the short-term with no expected benefit in the long-term.

 

The founding father by saying all men were created equal only meant white land owning men. Maybe Republicans would be happy to go back to those good old days, but the constitution is a living document that has evolved over time. However I think people over react to a few shootings here and there. Gun violence and violent crime has gone down over the past twenty years. There is just more coverage of it with 8 million channels and the internet. There are more important battles to be fought and Obama shouldn't waste his time on this one.

 

I think instead of looking to the future for answers..look into the past. Humans have repeated themselves many times over. You disarm the populace, you make all of them targets. Ask the Jews this. You don't make everything all happy happy joy joy by disarming people. Unless you plan on doing the same with the criminals. (which we know is impossible) quite the opposite.

If I was a criminal.. I'd be real happy if a gun ban got passed..it would basically make the whole US a "gun free zone" Also, you thought you had crooked people in office or law enforcement now..wait until they have the guns and you don't.

also speaking of Libya.. don't you think it's a little ****ed up that the US supplies arms to rebels in foreign countries and sends arms to drug dealers in Mexico.. yet they want to disarm citizens of this country. Does the president work for us or against us?

 

Just because the founding fathers believed something doesn't make it moral or just. What many of the liberals on this thread are trying to do is dishonestly misrepresent what the founding fathers believed. That's something different.

 

History says you're wrong, as many countries have accomplished this.If you want to limit gun violence, you successfully limit the supply of guns. This is common sense, it is backed by empirical evidence, and most rational people will see this. And no, this is not the part of the argument where you go "BUT BUT MEXICO HAS A GUN BAN!" - as has been said many times, assessing the efficacy of laws in a country where rule of law is more or less nonexistent is a mixture of dishonesty and ignorance on your part and there are many far better examples.

You can argue that 1 -1 =/ 0 all you want, but you're wrong; I have no interest in seeing how many dead elementary school kids it takes to make you not be an idiot- accordingly we are ready to proceed without you.

 

I agree with JV. On top of regular guns all Americans need to own an Apache helicopter and maybe a couple of tanks.

That's the American dream. A chicken in every pot and an M1 Abrams in every garage.

 

Drugs ....what can you say? And o yea..."the people".

 

So start with drugs, alcohol, and tobacco first. Save the children you hate and don't care about with the 1 -1 =\ 0 logic.

 

Nope history overwhelmingly says I'm right. Also those guns that went into Mexico? killed people here in the US. What liberal media doesn't get is..you are disarming the wrong people and the results will be worse.

As far as disarming the populace and history... time to go back to your history books and watch some current events.





<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It also didn't work in UK and it didn't work in Australia. So where did it work?

here's a recent article from the wall street journal regarding the bans in those countries..

LINK

I wonder how many rights people are going to give up until they are basically sheeples. I'd rather be an idiot.

 

I guess that's where we disagree. I'd say the criminals will be the last ones disarmed, but I do think they can be disarmed (on the margin). Illegal guns are easy to have because it's hard to tell an illegal gun from a legal one. If no gun was legal, spotting the crooks would be easy. It would be more expensive and risky to own and thus fewer people will partake.

But, that's not what we're talking about here anyway. Well, I was. But, Obama won't be making any executive orders that disarm the populace. It may improve tracking or screening or ban certain types, but at the end of the day, all our gun-toters will still be toting. So, I'm not sure what the criminals do will matter.

As for the Jews, do you really think we could have avoided the Holocaust if they were packing heat? They'd just been shot in their doorways instead of out in the forests.

 

You are an idiot, when your go-to move when your reaction to reasonable firearm limitations in the world's most abnormally violent country and to kindergarteners being torn apart by .223 shells from a military weapon is to throw up the ol' Hitler Stalin bull****.

People like you don't matter anymore - no point in convincing dead-enders. The adults are in charge, hopefully this time things will finally change.