Media Greasing the Wheels for Gun Ban

POSTED BY: Kirkules
UPDATED: Thursday, April 21, 2016 20:54
VIEWED: 9542
PAGE 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

KIRKULES

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:11 PM

The Democrats have tried to keep the media from bringing up guns before the election, but the media's enthusiasm for baning guns just won't let them remain silent. Bill Clinton blamed the NRA and gun issues for him losing the Congress in 1994 and Dem's were hoping to avoid having this issue lose votes for them this time around. Looks like the media has decided that they need to start greasing the wheels now, so the Dem's can make a gun ban one of their first orders of business if they take the White House.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iofRjmy0-AYAwghvA5oQpVki9OMwD8VL9U8
00

FLETCH2

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:56 PM

Explain why you need a military assault weapon for anything other than starting a war?Not as easily concealed as a handgun for personal defence and not as usefull as a shotgun for home defence.

This in a nutshell is the weakness of the NRA position. They feel the need to defend all guns even the types which have few legal uses.

THUNDAR

Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:48 AM

But gee... aren't automatic weapons already banned? How could they have possibly gotten one with a LAW in place to prevent it.

KIRKULES

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:43 AM

I didn't post this thread because I wanted to defend my right to own a semi-automatic rifle. I just wanted to let Democrats that support the Second Amendment know what they can expect if one of their candidates gets elected. Some see defending gun rights as a Republican issue, but I know there's almost as many Democrats out there that don't want their guns banned. There is only one candidate in this election cycle that has a good record of supporting gun rights and it happens to be the Republican. If Obama and Clinton don't support your Second Amendment rights, can you really trust them to defend your other constitutional rights.

If you anti-gunners out there want to ban guns, at least do it constitutionally by repealing the Second Amendment. If you do it any other way the outcome won't be pretty.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Democrats have tried to keep the media from bringing up guns before the election, but the media's enthusiasm for baning guns just won't let them remain silent. Bill Clinton blamed the NRA and gun issues for him losing the Congress in 1994 and Dem's were hoping to avoid having this issue lose votes for them this time around. Looks like the media has decided that they need to start greasing the wheels now, so the Dem's can make a gun ban one of their first orders of business if they take the White House.

I suspect that the Supreme Court will soon hand down a ruling that will finally assert what is obvious in any reasonable reading of the Second Amendment, that individual ownership of guns is a Constitutional Right.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

THUNDAR

Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Democrats have tried to keep the media from bringing up guns before the election, but the media's enthusiasm for baning guns just won't let them remain silent. Bill Clinton blamed the NRA and gun issues for him losing the Congress in 1994 and Dem's were hoping to avoid having this issue lose votes for them this time around. Looks like the media has decided that they need to start greasing the wheels now, so the Dem's can make a gun ban one of their first orders of business if they take the White House.
I suspect that the Supreme Court will soon hand down a ruling that will finally assert what is obvious in any reasonable reading of the Second Amendment, that individual ownership of guns is a Constitutional Right.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

I certainly hope so. I feel safer in a gymnasium full of people legally carrying concealed firearms than I do on any given roadway when the bars close at night.

FLETCH2

Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thundar:
But gee... aren't automatic weapons already banned? How could they have possibly gotten one with a LAW in place to prevent it.

No you're right, I mean robbing banks is illegal but it still happens anyway so robbery laws are obviously not working. Guess we should make robbery legal then?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:56 AM

I stongly believe in the right to own guns, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Automatic weapons and super-sized clips are the causes of a lot of law enforcement officers' deaths. Often times, the police with their 9mm's are no match for the raw firepower these weapons can unleash. There is absolutely no reason that a "sportsman" or even a "home defender" needs these things. A handgun or a shot gun is great for home defense, but these military-style weapons should all be destroyed before they're used to rob another bank, or terrorize another fast food joint.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:30 PM

Know what, I am tired of being polite about this...

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe
Pennsylvania Gazette
Feb. 20, 1788

Coxe was one of Madison's buddies, and for the record, Madison thought it so obvious that this right existed, it needed neither explaination nor protection in the Constitution, and argued such in the Federalist Papers.

He also thought it didn't really need defending, because it was utterly inconcievable to him that anyone would DARE even TRY to violate it.

And if they did, the Citizenry, which would, BY INTENT, outgun them...
Would kick their ass.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"
-Madison

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression."
-Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, 1898

Learn some history, folks.

Look, that Right was considered utterly, absolutely sovereign before the Constitution was even written in it's protection, it wasn't GIVEN to us, it's considered a natural right right up there with the freedom to say what you will and worship as you will.

Do you need a permit to practice your religion ?
A license to speak your mind ?

Fuck no.

That right MEANS Assault Rifles, and RPGs, and TANKS, if we want em.

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ain't gettin across here ?

The FedGov can NOT legally restrict, in any way, shape or form, the possession of any weapon what so ever unless that restriction is part of the sentence of a convicted criminal under due process of law.

To change that REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment, as Prohibition did, period.

The State you live in, due to this protection is also unable to infringe upon or restrict that right in any way, shape or form.

The fact that they DO it, and do so under threat of force, violence and incarceration, does NOT make it legal, it just makes the fiction that the Constitution means anything to our established order not hold water, is all.

By itself, the document is just a piece of paper, the arms of the citizenry, you, me, everyone else, are the iron supposed to back it up.

Those of you who support any other position have no respect for the document entire, in my opinion.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:37 PM

Particularly interesting was Hamiltons assertion that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create a standing army loyal to the FedGov in this country, according to him it just could not, would not, happen.

http://federalistpapers.com/federalist8.html
http://federalistpapers.com/federalist29.html

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE