Epic Fail: Obama's "EOs" on gun control

[Lowaicue]

Let's clarify, It's not ME who is using 1776 language, it was the people who penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't insist on it, that's how it was written by the people who wrote it at the time, it has nothing to do with me. The term "well regulated" does not mean that government should enforce a bunch of regulations on it, that is a modern misinterpretation of "well regulated" that simply doesn't apply to the original intent by the people who wrote the Constitution.

Now, let's correct a few more misconceptions. There is NO STATE which doesn't mandate background checks (and waiting periods) on gun purchasers. To my knowledge, "mentally deranged" people are not allowed to purchase firearms. In fact, Adam Lanza had attempted to buy a gun and was rejected, because he had a relatively mild history of mental health issues. He had not been diagnosed as "mentally deranged" and was not institutionalized.

What IS an "assault rifle?" Can you explain it to me? Is it a gun that has a certain "look" about it? It is a gun that is able to fire every time you pull the trigger? My shotgun does that, is it an "assault rifle?" Is it because the ammunition is housed in a magazine instead of internally? What exactly makes it an "assault" rifle?

There are two things which make me happy. One is a complete ignorance of drugs and the other is an ignorance of guns. My ignorance, however does not stretch to the effect that both have on society.
Regarding the semantics of your multi amended constitution I would not know what was intended since I was not there at the time. Neither were you so your opinion must be just that, an opinion. I gave you the Latin derivation of the word and Latin did not change between 1776 and the present day. If American people of 1776 were as ignorant of the English language as their modern counterparts I am surprised you bestow upon your constitution even the slightest credibility.
Anyway we are unlikely to agree. I agree with Morgan. I agree with Obama. I agree with most intelligent people about guns in America. If you wish to be the only person marching in step enjoy your brief life and when it is nearly over reflect on how you and people like you have worked against the sanity of the US and the rest of the world.
Your name isn't Phelps is it? You are just as loony but less significant.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Great Dixie. Now all you need is an adult to explain the context and intent of Madison's words.

Well, I know the context and intent already. You see, we had just recently declared our independence from a tyrannic overbearing government, and as we were forming our new nation, people were fairly sensitive about their rights and the last thing they wanted was another tyrannic overbearing government, taking those rights from them. Our right to bear arms is inalienable and protected under the Constitution to ensure against a tyrannic overbearing government who might threaten our rights. Madison explains this brilliantly in Federalist 46.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There are two things which make me happy. One is a complete ignorance of drugs and the other is an ignorance of guns. My ignorance, however does not stretch to the effect that both have on society.

At least you admit your ignorance. You're a step ahead of most morons!

Regarding the semantics of your multi amended constitution I would not know what was intended since I was not there at the time. Neither were you so your opinion must be just that, an opinion. I gave you the Latin derivation of the word and Latin did not change between 1776 and the present day. If American people of 1776 were as ignorant of the English language as their modern counterparts I am surprised you bestow upon your constitution even the slightest credibility.

Well, see now, this is where you are wrong, because I do know what was intended. We don't just have the Constitution and nothing else to go by, in discerning what it means. We have a whole collection of Federalist Papers, also written by the Founding Fathers, which go into great detail with the various arguments and explanations, and this is where we find the intent and meaning. Like I correctly pointed out, it makes no logical sense to inform people they have a "right" and then tell them it is controlled by government. Therefore, "well regulated" can't mean what you want to interpret it to mean.

Anyway we are unlikely to agree. I agree with Morgan. I agree with Obama. I agree with most intelligent people about guns in America. If you wish to be the only person marching in step enjoy your brief life and when it is nearly over reflect on how you and people like you have worked against the sanity of the US and the rest of the world.
Your name isn't Phelps is it? You are just as loony but less significant.

Well you can call me names all day, I don't care. Pretending that I am "stupid" or lack intelligence, is not going to win this argument for you. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you're not taking my guns. You can threaten, you can try to intimidate, you can ridicule me and call me names, you can lay down in the floor and pitch a hissy fit, but you're not going to ever take my guns. If you ever try, you'll die trying, because I am a very good shot. You have the right to agree with Obama or Morgan, or anyone else for that matter, I don't mind.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Don't be so bloody childish.

so you have no way to prove that the founders meant what you say? you could have just said you didn't, instead of resorting to a childish reply.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I would guess you enjoy handling any arse, you are a yank and it rather goes with the territory.
However you ask me to tell you what the phrase 'a well regulated militia' means.
I'll try but I can't guarantee that you will understand, yank.
A militia consists of civilians TRAINED as soldiers but not part of the regular army. That you are not.
The second meaning is the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service and that you (plural meaning all gun owners in the US) are not.
Next. 'Regulated' means controlled or governed according to rule or principle. It is from the Latin 'regula' meaning rule. There is no 'regulation' of the loonies in America who like tossing off to a gun.
Well regulated, of course, means regulated in a good and efficient way and, dear boy before you even get close enough to touch my arse, there is no way that there is good regulation when it comes to deranged yanks with guns.
OK? Or would you like some more, you mental cripple?

since I was trained as a Marine, I qualify?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here's one...

Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.

more misinformation. the founders did not believe that a standing army would take over the government. they feared a standing army controlled by the government because of their direct experience of an oppressive government and it's standing army. If the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee protecting the government from a standing army, then it should be mandated that we all own machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, and jets.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Rule or principle does not necessarily mean a government ordinance, rule of principle. The important thing is that there is no rule or principle in the US that complies with the term well regulated. In many states there aren't even checks on purchasers.

this is a lie.

If you wish to use 1776 language you should also remember that the arms now available and used increasingly by the mentally deranged of your country had not been dreamed of.
Now if you all want to keep 1776 then equip yourselves with muskets and not assault rifles etc.

strawman.

 

[Bfgrn]

more misinformation. the founders did not believe that a standing army would take over the government. they feared a standing army controlled by the government because of their direct experience of an oppressive government and it's standing army. If the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee protecting the government from a standing army, then it should be mandated that we all own machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, and jets.

No, our founding fathers created militias in place of a standing army in peacetime. They all agreed the government had unlimited rights to create and fund a standing army if invaded by a foreign nation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, our founding fathers created militias in place of a standing army in peacetime. They all agreed the government had unlimited rights to create and fund a standing army if invaded by a foreign nation.

that does nothing to address the points you got wrong.

 

[Howey]

Rule or principle does not necessarily mean a government ordinance, rule of principle. The important thing is that there is no rule or principle in the US that complies with the term well regulated. In many states there aren't even checks on purchasers.
If you wish to use 1776 language you should also remember that the arms now available and used increasingly by the mentally deranged of your country had not been dreamed of.
Now if you all want to keep 1776 then equip yourselves with muskets and not assault rifles etc.

Don't forget.

Gun nuts should only be allowed to use the weapons available in 1776 too.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Well, I know the context and intent already. You see, we had just recently declared our independence from a tyrannic overbearing government, and as we were forming our new nation, people were fairly sensitive about their rights and the last thing they wanted was another tyrannic overbearing government, taking those rights from them. Our right to bear arms is inalienable and protected under the Constitution to ensure against a tyrannic overbearing government who might threaten our rights. Madison explains this brilliantly in Federalist 46.

And let's not forget that Paul Revere's ride was brought about because if the Brits coming to confiscate guns

 

[Howey]

And let's not forget that Paul Revere's ride was brought about because if the Brits coming to confiscate guns

You can't get anything right, can you?

He was going to warn Adams the Brits were coming to arrest him.

You're such a failure...

 

[evince]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid...sidential_Directives_by_Administration.5B2.5D


Names for Presidential Directives by Administration[2]

Presidents have issued such directives under various names.



Acronym

Full Title

Time Frame

Presidential Administration(s)



NSCID

National Security Council Intelligence Directives

1947–1977

Truman–Ford



NSAM

National Security Action Memorandums

1961–1969

Kennedy and Johnson



NSSM

National Security Study Memorandums

1969–1977

Nixon and Ford



NSDM

National Security Decision Memorandums

1969–1977

Nixon and Ford



PRM

Presidential Review Memorandums

1977–1981

Carter



PD

Presidential Directives

1977–1981

Carter



NSSD

National Security Study Directives

1981–1989

Reagan



NSDD

National Security Decision Directives

1981–1989

Reagan



NSR

National Security Reviews

1989–1993

G. H. W. Bush



NSD

National Security Directives

1989–1993

G. H. W. Bush



PRD

Presidential Review Directive

1993–2001

Clinton



PDD

Presidential Decision Directives

1993–2001

Clinton



NSPD

National Security Presidential Directives

2001–2009

G. W. Bush



HSPD

Homeland Security Presidential Directives

2001–

G. W. Bush and Obama



PSD

Presidential Study Directives

2009–

Obama



PPD

Presidential Policy Directives

2009–

Obama

 

[Phantasmal]

You can't get anything right, can you?

He was going to warn Adams the Brits were coming to arrest him.

You're such a failure...

Is he being facetious? Isn't that what Sarah Palin claimed, is He as uneducated as Palin or just trying to be funny to get a reponse?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, our founding fathers created militias in place of a standing army in peacetime. They all agreed the government had unlimited rights to create and fund a standing army if invaded by a foreign nation.

and this is also wrong. you'd know that if you ever bothered to read the constitution.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Is he being facetious? Isn't that what Sarah Palin claimed, is He as uneducated as Palin or just trying to be funny to get a reponse?

Your ignorance is easily cured if you are willing to open your mind. Don't take it from me. Take it from the man who made the ride.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/paul-reveres-ride-2.html

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, I know the context and intent already. You see, we had just recently declared our independence from a tyrannic overbearing government, and as we were forming our new nation, people were fairly sensitive about their rights and the last thing they wanted was another tyrannic overbearing government, taking those rights from them. Our right to bear arms is inalienable and protected under the Constitution to ensure against a tyrannic overbearing government who might threaten our rights. Madison explains this brilliantly in Federalist 46.

Wrong again Dixie Lou. First of all, you posted Federalist 45, labeled it 46 and left out the first 8 paragraphs of the essay. The context of The Federalist Papers on a whole was making an argument to ratify the Constitution.

The Federalist was written to support the ratification of the Constitution. The 13 states were operating at the time under the Articles of Confederation. They were making argument for creating a union of states, a federal government, delegated authority, separation of powers, checks and balances.

The intent of Federalist 45; Madison makes the argument that a powerful general government will not threaten the remaining authority of the state governments and render them wholly subservient.

It is clear our founding fathers has mice overwhelmed by fear like yourself to contend with. He starts our the paragraph you posted by basically calling these mice idiots. Hamilton was much more combative in his essays.


The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October of 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean. The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.

The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.

At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the likely authors.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Rule or principle does not necessarily mean a government ordinance, rule of principle. The important thing is that there is no rule or principle in the US that complies with the term well regulated. In many states there aren't even checks on purchasers.
If you wish to use 1776 language you should also remember that the arms now available and used increasingly by the mentally deranged of your country had not been dreamed of.
Now if you all want to keep 1776 then equip yourselves with muskets and not assault rifles etc.

Then only the King should be allowed to use the King's English.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong again Dixie Lou. First of all, you posted Federalist 45, labeled it 46 and left out the first 8 paragraphs of the essay. The context of The Federalist Papers on a whole was making an argument to ratify the Constitution.

What is posted is known as Federalist 46, it is labeled 45 because of a numbering glitch, and this is explained at the link.

The widely accepted number for this essay is now 46. However, the publisher of this edition did not use that numbering system, and instead numbered this essay 45. If you are looking for the essay commonly called 45, go to Federalist No. 45.

The Federalist was written to support the ratification of the Constitution. The 13 states were operating at the time under the Articles of Confederation. They were making argument for creating a union of states, a federal government, delegated authority, separation of powers, checks and balances.

Nothing to dispute here, I have not argued otherwise. They were also arguing for the formation of a Federal military, which was of utmost concern of the Anti-Federalists, the main opposition to Federalism and this new Constitution. In many ways, the 2nd Amendment is part of those "checks and balances" you mention, as Madison so eloquently explained in Federalist 46.

The intent of Federalist 45; Madison makes the argument that a powerful general government will not threaten the remaining authority of the state governments and render them wholly subservient.

Which is what I just said.

It is clear our founding fathers has mice overwhelmed by fear like yourself to contend with. He starts our the paragraph you posted by basically calling these mice idiots. Hamilton was much more combative in his essays.

Again, there were Anti-Federalists who opposed Federalization, and one of their main concerns was a Federal government disarming the people. Madison did not call them idiots, he said their fears were unfounded and he couldn't conceive of a time and place where Federal government would ever come to such a place, but of course, he never met a modern-day gun control Liberal, either. Nevertheless, he entertained their concerns and articulated a brilliant point with regard to the protections of freedom afforded by the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Again, the reason for the 2nd was to appease Anti-Federalist concerns of the possibility the Federal government would subjugate the people. In order to get the Constitution ratified, these concerns had to be addressed, they didn't have a little dictator in office who could pass laws by executive fiat, or a political party that wanted to emotively shut down any and all debate, insisting they knew best.

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October of 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean. The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.

The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.

At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the likely authors.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

 

[Howey]

Is he being facetious? Isn't that what Sarah Palin claimed, is He as uneducated as Palin or just trying to be funny to get a reponse?

No....Palin said Paul Revere was warning the British! Lordy mercy, that woman was a real brainiac!

Your ignorance is easily cured if you are willing to open your mind. Don't take it from me. Take it from the man who made the ride.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/paul-reveres-ride-2.html

You amuse me...

I got my information from the Paul Revere House website.

In 1774 and the Spring of 1775 Paul Revere was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety as an express rider to carry news, messages, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.

On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).

On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

Your bit of info came from Revolutionary War and Beyond, published by Smashbooks, a website that will publish anything anyone wants published for a fee.

Anyone can contribute to the site, which surreptiously is used by grade school children.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-be...war-contribute-your-historical-expertise.html

In conclusion, you fail once again.