Are your gun rights safe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

Is Obama secretly plotting to ban guns?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • No

    Votes: 6 75.0%
  • Total voters
    8
Now you're into semantics...granted....secured....however you want to say it...we have the right to keep and bear arms....period.
 
Nemo said:
If you are suggesting that the Second Amendment sanctions a right to bear arms against the government, you are absolutely wrong. The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record is wrong. George Washington (who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War) presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.

We would do well to learn from history, and stop trying to rewrite it.
Click to expand...

then why are you rewriting it? If that 'lawfully constituted government' turns on it's creator, we do indeed have the right to restore it, by force of arms if necessary.
 
Nemo said:
There are no natural rights, no inherent rights, no unalienable rights. There are only legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That’s the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

how about no? does 'no' work for you? because it works for the rest of us.
 
Nemo said:
No, that's not right. We do not have the right to make our own laws. Ours is a constitutional republic - a representative form of government - and under the Constitution, our laws are made by the legislative branch by our elected representatives, and not by mob rule.
Click to expand...

if you were alive back at our countries founding, you would have prevented the american revolution.
 
leaningright said:
You give Obama a second term where he doesn't have to be concerned about being re-elected, he'll do everything he can to please the more liberal side of his base. His track record on guns isn't good anyway.
Click to expand...

Well if he's not worried about re-election, why would he care about pleaseing his liberal base?
 
Nemo said:
There are no natural rights, no inherent rights, no unalienable rights. There are only legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That’s the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

So black people weren't people until the 14th amendmet? Damn.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
nemo is wrong, and so are you if you agree with him. law didn't create human beings, nature did. therefore rights are given by nature. end of story.
Click to expand...
In which case corporations are NOT people and zygotes are potential humans..not human by your definition. Nature hasn't given corporations rights, money isn't free speech and a fertilized egg isn't a person.
 
Nemo said:
The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document. It is the Constitution that established the foundation of our nation and government under the rule of law. Nor does the Second Amendment provide authority for armed insurrection against the "lawfully constituted government." The notion that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to bear arms against the government is utter nonsense. There is no such right; and to propagate such action is sedition, and to perpetrate it treason.
Click to expand...
why are you dragging the declaration in to this? unless you think it will obfuscate the issue enough to make you sound intelligent.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't provide anything other than telling the government that we created that it has no power or authority to infringe on the ownership and carrying of arms. The citizens have the highest power and authority over it's government because the government does not have the power and authority to do anything other than what the constitution prescribes, therefore, if the government abuses or ignores it's limits and all lawful means to bring it back in check have failed, force of arms is the last method that we the people have to maintain control over the government. We the people not only have the RIGHT to control and restrict our government, but we have the DUTY to do so. Restoring constitutional limits to our created government is not now, nor will it ever be, sedition or treason.

Nemo said:
I am absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...
yes, you are.
 
C'Thulhu said:
Well if he's not worried about re-election, why would he care about pleaseing his liberal base?
Click to expand...

Because that is what he inherently is....liberal. The only thing that kept him from enacting more of the liberal agenda this term is the hope of a second term....well that and 2010.
 
Nemo said:
The point is that the framers of the Constitution did not adopt the ideas of Thomas Jefferson on natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Under the Constitution, there cannot be any rights except by law. For example, under the Constitution, there is no right for a citizen to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for “electors” for the President of the United States as directed under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The President does not make the laws; it is both houses of Congress that passes Bills enacted into laws, subject to presidential approval under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, or by congressional override by two-thirds majority vote in each house. The President is the head of the executive branch of government charged with enforcing the laws enacted by Congress that is done through regulatory enforcement agencies established by law. Both acts of Congress and the Executive under the system of checks and balances are subject to the power of the Judicial Branch pursuant to the jurisdiction granted under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution. There is no provision for overthrowing the government by use of force; that is treasonous. The way to change the face of government is through the electoral process or by impeachment; the way to change the structure of government is by constitutional amendment; and the way to challenge the law is through the courts. This is the way our representative form of government is set up, and the way it works.
Click to expand...

and when the government ignores we the people in it's attempts to restore it to it's constitutional limits?
 
Nemo said:
The point is that the framers of the Constitution did not adopt the ideas of Thomas Jefferson on natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Under the Constitution, there cannot be any rights except by law. For example, under the Constitution, there is no right for a citizen to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for “electors” for the President of the United States as directed under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The President does not make the laws; it is both houses of Congress that passes Bills enacted into laws, subject to presidential approval under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, or by congressional override by two-thirds majority vote in each house. The President is the head of the executive branch of government charged with enforcing the laws enacted by Congress that is done through regulatory enforcement agencies established by law. Both acts of Congress and the Executive under the system of checks and balances are subject to the power of the Judicial Branch pursuant to the jurisdiction granted under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution. There is no provision for overthrowing the government by use of force; that is treasonous. The way to change the face of government is through the electoral process or by impeachment; the way to change the structure of government is by constitutional amendment; and the way to challenge the law is through the courts. This is the way our representative form of government is set up, and the way it works.
Click to expand...

just because the constitution doesn't literally say "you can overthrow the government if you want" doesn't mean that said right does not exist. no power or authority would ever be so plain to say that. But that doesn't mean this sentiment wasn't espoused by numerous founder fathers. Furthermore, just because something isn't specifically outlined or sanctioned doesn't mean it isn't real, isn't true, or doesn't exist, as you seem to claim and assert. Jury nullification is a real thing, and it has affects on our judicial system and society, and the people are free to exercise it, even if a judge would discourage it. You don't have to look very far back in history to see numerous examples of people taking arms up against their government. You sound borderline delusional or in denial to further your own agenda. Not to mention entirely pseudo-intellectual.

Gun rights have existed in our nation for ~240 years, and if things ever go so sour, they WILL be exercised to their fullest extent again. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.
 
G R I N D said:
just because the constitution doesn't literally say "you can overthrow the government if you want" doesn't mean that said right does not exist. no power or authority would ever be so plain to say that. But that doesn't mean this sentiment wasn't espoused by numerous founder fathers. Furthermore, just because something isn't specifically outlined or sanctioned doesn't mean it isn't real, isn't true, or doesn't exist, as you seem to claim and assert. Jury nullification is a real thing, and it has affects on our judicial system and society, and the people are free to exercise it, even if a judge would discourage it. You don't have to look very far back in history to see numerous examples of people taking arms up against their government. You sound borderline delusional or in denial to further your own agenda. Not to mention entirely pseudo-intellectual.

Gun rights have existed in our nation for ~240 years, and if things ever go so sour, they WILL be exercised to their fullest extent again. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, you are turning into STY!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top