• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

Rich Z

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Insiders Club
Yes, I know this will be a highly charged topic, but after that one thread where someone(s) got me to thinking about this Obama character, well I've been digging and not much liking what I am digging up on the guy. And as many people who know me will attest to, don't be screwing around with MY gun rights.

By David T. Hardy

Source: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

“The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.”​

(45:17-18; online link; slow).

The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.
 
Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.

I hear you. But I take him at his word on this. The Democrats now know to leave guns alone, or they will lose majority in the very next vote. I don't doubt that the Democratic Party as a whole would love to get to that, but they have to choose their battles.. They've been talking about this as well.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/18/dems_and_guns/index.html
http://a2dems.net/whoweare.htm
http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2004/11/let_us_look_wes.html
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/the-democrats-get-gun-shy/

Here's a nice quote from the last link I posted..

"The Democrats’ shift dates to Al Gore’s defeat in 2000, when he was an outspoken supporter of renewing the assault weapons ban. After his loss, Terry McAuliffe, the national Democratic chairman who is now chairman of Senator Clinton’s presidential run, bitterly warned future party candidates that gun control was a third-rail issue they should avoid."

Even if I knew they were after guns though Rich, I would vote for them this time. We have a lot on the agenda right now, and I feel the alternative is riskier in more immediate ways. Not to mention both sides are threats to different parts of the Constitution, so I'm also concerned about the judges to be appointed next..

Remember too, most Americans are FOR some amount of gun control. I do not want my neighbors armed with mounted .50's like we have in the Army. On the other hand, I'd really like to have an AR15, and I can't because I live in California. I don't think that's fair.:sobstory:

I feel I have to add this too. I understand that the second ammendment is a part of the Constitution. I guess the Republicans are the stalwarts of our great Constitution?

Bush and War Powers
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1209444,00.html

Bush and Presidential Powers
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/14/arts/IDLEDE17.php

Bush and the First Ammendment
http://www.podcastingnews.com/2007/06/14/bush-administration-amendment-apply-bloggers/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-20070421ymwmeldhvami

Tax Payers funding Religious Organizations
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul2.html

Bush and Habeas Corpus
http://www.cato.org/new/06-02/06-20-02r.html

All that and more in great depth. From the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank.. Don't just take it from my side...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf
 
Last edited:
Yeah. I just treat the Second Amendment much as miners would use a canary when they went into the coal mines. It the canary died, it meant the mine was poisoned with gases. In a like manner, if the Second Amendment dies, so goes the rest of the Constitution. IMHO, of course.
 
Sorry Rich, I should have put that new stuff I added to my post after yours- Didn't realize you had already responded. My main point being I believe that I am a Constitutional voter, the greater threat to that document seems to be coming from the other side IMO.
 
Last edited:
Well, I read everything I could get my hands on about BOTH candidates. I am a member of one of the parties, and am highly partisan, but as an informed voter I need to balance both sides of the equation and vote with the best interests of my country at heart. Truthfully, I am not impressed with either of them, and am voting for the "lesser of 2 evils".

WHOMEVER wins the White House on November 4th, I hope I am wrong about him. I really do.....

(I have never so badly wanted to be wrong......)
 
I normally avoid these topics, but I have to agree with TomE on this one. I think there are much, MUCH bigger threats to the constitution than Obama's gun policies. The "other side" is threatening our rights to free speech, to privacy, to equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness, and they have lambasted our civil rights over the past 8 years. I cannot imagine having a GW "flunky" in the house will do any good. Afterall...it was his brilliant staff(of which John McCain was a member in good standing) that got us INTO these predicaments, how the heck can we reasonably expect them to get us out?

They CAN'T get us out because if they DO get us out, they will have to admit all of the bogus accusations and tribulations of the last 8 years were wrong...and they can't do that.

No, I'm sorry...gun control doesn't hurt the average law-abiding citizen. It might make things a little more difficult for awhile, but control and banning are two different things, and I firmly believe that a little bit of gun control is MUCH better than a whole lot of civil rights abuses and abuses of legislative power.

I mean...realistically...the entire foundation of principles that our government was founded upon have been buried slowly but surely over the last 8 years under the guise of "National Security". Seems to me that at this point, the biggest threat to our government is our politicians...

A wise man once said that The people should never be afraid of their government. A government should be afraid of it's people. I'm sick and tired of being treated like a baby and being told "You don't need to know". The past 8 years, our government has been telling us to just hush and go to sleep, and they will take care of everything...and just look around. Nothing has been properly taken care of, and we have been sleeping like blissful little babies.

And is it any wonder? The last time our economy was THIS messed up was...hmm...let's think back...who was in office? Oh yea...the OTHER Bush...:rolleyes:...
 
I'm curious about everyone's take on the 2nd ammendment.. Is it's purpose to keep an armed citizenry so that the government can't walk all over us? If that's the case, it seems to me that the intention would be better served by those of us who feel strongly about it joining the National Guard instead. I say that because the notion that a citizenry armed with rifles is going to defeat the US Army without Armor, Artillery, trained Infantry and Air Power is kind of silly. I dont say that as a fault against our founding fathers.. Who could have forseen how technological war would become.. And how specialized the warrier.
How does everyone else interpret the second ammendment? What's it's purpose and modern relevance to you? I tend to think of it as something symbolic at this point, but I still think it's important..
 
I just don't get why some people are so afraid to "update" the constitution...
The rules back then sometimes do not apply to modern days, and the second amendment is a clear example of that.

Back in the 1700's when the second amendment was spawned, security concerns were much simpler in nature. A person comes onto your property to steal a horse, you shoot them. The south comes up to take over the north you shoot them. All these things currently the domain of the Police and Military. The need for a free man to protects ones' nation has pretty much been relegated to the middle east and other countries where civil unrest is rampant.

I'm pretty sure the creators of the second amendment had more honorable uses of the firearm in mind (As if shooting anyone could really be deemed as honourable.) Fact of the matter is, firearms have also changed since the signing of the second amendment. The single shot powder musket have been replaced by machine guns capable of killing entire families and classrooms with the simple press of a trigger.
(http://fourbrains.blogspot.com/2008/02/second-amendment-rednecks-in-dark-ages.html)
 
Other than design intent what is the difference in a gun and any other inanimate object that has been used to kill in the past? I have had guns since my first BB gun at 6 or 7 yrs old and not one of them has ever killed, injured, maimed, etc, etc, etc or in any other way harmed a person.

I want my civil liberties infringed upon no more than anyone else. I see extreme gun control as the proverbial tip of the iceberg. If we passively give in to too much gun control what's next? Will I need a license to buy a hammer at the hardware store? Should we require all food be precut to nibblet size pieces so I don't need to own a steak knife? Maybe we need to outlaw little league baseball because my son had to have a bat to play. Do we need to restrict gasoline purchase for your lawn mower because somone may burn down a house with it? The list could become endless!

Society doesn't scream to outlaw a Chevy when a drunk driver kills with it, we make it tougher and tougher on the drunk drivers. Why are we not doing the same with those that use guns to commit a crime? I know we do some but then the left crys "cruel and unusual". How is it cruel and unusual to want a lifetime criminal with dozens of convictions to be kept away from the society he/she chose not to live in?

Folks I am all for gun control for a criminal/felon, heck even gun prohibition. But if I have never commited a crime with a gun why should my rights be infringed upon to appease some group that believes they know what's better for me than I do? Just imagine what problems could have been solved by the millions of dollars and many many intellegent people that chose gun control as a focus in life. Would it have not been far more beneficial to society had those thinktanks and millions been devoted to curing cancer, or educating our kids, or self-reliant energy?

Sorry Rich for the small gun rant on your political thread.
 
The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere. I think this is (mostly) a bogus issue propagated by both sides. The Republicans go around spouting about how the Dems are going to take away all guns, which of course isn't true. And the Dems go around talking about how the Repubs want to arm every citizen and then we'll all be shooting each other (als not true).

Things like the handgun ban in DC were stupid, and I'm glad its gone. I think handguns, hunting rifles, etc are perfectly fine and should have mostly no limits as far as owning them. But reasonable regulations on firearms, I think, is definitely needed. Three day waiting periods, registration, mandatory safety classes, etc. What I don't think is OK, is your average Joe being able to get military grade weapons in the name of the 2nd amendment.

Whether Obama or McCain is elected, your right to bear arms isn't going to be significantly effected one way or the other. We have much BIGGER problems to worry about with our country than the 2nd amendment right now.

And I'll also add I don't think if the 2nd amendment dies the Constitution will go. I think other rights (free speech, freedom of religion, fair trial, etc) are much more paramount to our freedoms than guns. But that's just me.
 
... reasonable regulations on firearms, I think, is definitely needed. Three day waiting periods, registration, mandatory safety classes, etc. What I don't think is OK, is your average Joe being able to get military grade weapons in the name of the 2nd amendment.

I second that!
 
Other than design intent what is the difference in a gun and any other inanimate object that has been used to kill in the past? I have had guns since my first BB gun at 6 or 7 yrs old and not one of them has ever killed, injured, maimed, etc, etc, etc or in any other way harmed a person.
That's great! If everyone were so cautious, there would be no need for controls. Unfortunately, there are FAR too many people that simply do not understand how to properly own a gun or properly use a gun. there are also far too many people willing to use them in the wrong way, and I believe that a bit of control is necessary to prevent these people from having guns. Waiting periods, background checks, etc...none of these should be cause for issue with a normal, upstanding, law abiding citizen. I'm sorry, but if you need a handgun, there is no reason you should expect to avoid a waiting period for a background and licensing check. If you plan to OWN an arsenal, you should be able to PROVE that you are competent and legally eligible to own such weapons. I don't have a problem with you owning them...I just see a STRONG need to control the people that do own them.

I want my civil liberties infringed upon no more than anyone else. I see extreme gun control as the proverbial tip of the iceberg. If we passively give in to too much gun control what's next? Will I need a license to buy a hammer at the hardware store? Should we require all food be precut to nibblet size pieces so I don't need to own a steak knife? Maybe we need to outlaw little league baseball because my son had to have a bat to play. Do we need to restrict gasoline purchase for your lawn mower because somone may burn down a house with it? The list could become endless!

Society doesn't scream to outlaw a Chevy when a drunk driver kills with it, we make it tougher and tougher on the drunk drivers. Why are we not doing the same with those that use guns to commit a crime? I know we do some but then the left crys "cruel and unusual". How is it cruel and unusual to want a lifetime criminal with dozens of convictions to be kept away from the society he/she chose not to live in?
These comparisons don't happen that way. Gun are designed for one intent and purpose only...to kill. There simply is NO other reason for a gun other than to shoot and kill something, be it a rabbit, squirrel, deer, boar, bird or person. There simply is no other purpose for a gun besides killing.

All of your strawmen above are tools designed for one purpose and being used for a purpose other than it's intended purpose. When a person points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger effectively causing the death of another living creature, that "tool" is being used for the express purpose for which it was designed. There IS no other purpose.

Folks I am all for gun control for a criminal/felon, heck even gun prohibition. But if I have never commited a crime with a gun why should my rights be infringed upon to appease some group that believes they know what's better for me than I do? Just imagine what problems could have been solved by the millions of dollars and many many intellegent people that chose gun control as a focus in life. Would it have not been far more beneficial to society had those thinktanks and millions been devoted to curing cancer, or educating our kids, or self-reliant energy?

Sorry Rich for the small gun rant on your political thread.
This last part...I just don't see your point. No, I do NOT believe that the money would be better spent. So you are a law abiding citizen with no record. That's great. Now prove it. That's all anyone asks. You do not have a right to own machine guns and fully automatic weaponry, tanks, bazookas, ATG missles, GTA missiles, rocket launchers, grenades and the other myriad of extremely deadly weaponry that falls under the heading of "ballistic" or "projectile". That right was never GIVEN to you, and as such it cannot be taken AWAY from you. That is a "right" that was never granted.

You are legally permitted to own as many rifles, shotguns, handguns, semi-auto assault rifles, and even a certain amount of explosive powders. Nobody has EVER denied you those rights, and frankly I don't think anyone ever will. Is it too much to ask that you pass a test before being allowed to purchase them? I don't think so.

Heck, I need to take a written and a road test to have a driver's license. Yet you expect that any Joe should be allowed to walk into any gun store and purchase any weapons he wants with no waiting period, background check, licensing process, or educational demands? That's fairly ludicrous in my opinion.

Gun control prevents normal, average, law abiding citizens from making snap purchases in the heat of anger or obsession. It prevents them from bypassing background checks that might otherwise prevent them from happening. It keeps guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals, and prevents them from being abused...even by law abiding citizens. I don't see a problem with that.

I like guns. I don't opwn any, currently, but when my daughter is older, I have intention of owning them, shooting them, hunting with them, and defenmding my life and my family with them. I also have every intention of taking my exams, my safety course, getting my certification, waiting my mandatory waiting periods, going through the background checks, and following the letter of the law to acquire them.

If you ask me...anyone that is truly a law abiding citizen with no ill intentions purposed for their guns, should have no reason to be upset with them being controlled. Do you really need a .50 caliber anything? Do you really think you have the right to fire off 100 rounds per second of 7.62mm jacketed rounds? Is there really any legitimate purpose to purchasing armor piercing rounds? Is there really any legitimate purpose to owning incendiaries and tracers?

The bottom line is quite simply...no. There is no legitimate reason why any gun owner would "need" any of those things. There is no legitimate purpose for a law abiding citizen to have access to those things. These weapons are not covered under our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Nobody has EVER tried to stop anyone with legal intent from acquiring hunting weapons or home defense weapons. You can purchase and own an incredible variety of handguns, rifles and shotguns. Anything else is unnecessary, and frankly...unwarranted. It certainly isn't a violation of your 2nd Ammendment rights to prevent you from owning any of the things listed above...
 
tyflier, Before I respond I want to say I respect your opinion.
That's great! If everyone were so cautious, there would be no need for controls. Unfortunately, there are FAR too many people that simply do not understand how to properly own a gun or properly use a gun. there are also far too many people willing to use them in the wrong way, and I believe that a bit of control is necessary to prevent these people from having guns. Waiting periods, background checks, etc...none of these should be cause for issue with a normal, upstanding, law abiding citizen. I'm sorry, but if you need a handgun, there is no reason you should expect to avoid a waiting period for a background and licensing check. If you plan to OWN an arsenal, you should be able to PROVE that you are competent and legally eligible to own such weapons. I don't have a problem with you owning them...I just see a STRONG need to control the people that do own them.
My post was more directed to extreme gun control, banning etc. I didn't state it very well. I don't really have a problem with wait periods, background checks, etc but the article Rich posted wasn't about wait periods and background checks. It was about challenging individual rights in the 2nd amendment. However do you really believe the wait period will affect some of the people you speak of? If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun do you think they will be worried about committing an additional crime to get the gun? It would be even harder to believe that if someone really wanted a gun to commit a crime that they would go through any proper channels anyway. Believing it is illegal will make it impossible to get would be a fallacy. Look at drugs they are illegal and can be had in every country on the planet.


These comparisons don't happen that way. Gun are designed for one intent and purpose only...to kill. There simply is NO other reason for a gun other than to shoot and kill something, be it a rabbit, squirrel, deer, boar, bird or person. There simply is no other purpose for a gun besides killing.
I will have to differ with you here. I use many of mine for sport shooting, trap and skeet shooting, pistol range targets, etc. They are even used in the Olympics. They are used in movies and in shows of skill like trick shooting. Not everyone uses guns to kill. Not all guns are designed for that purpose. In fact many guns are designed specifically for some of the above uses.

All of your strawmen above are tools designed for one purpose and being used for a purpose other than it's intended purpose. When a person points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger effectively causing the death of another living creature, that "tool" is being used for the express purpose for which it was designed. There IS no other purpose.
My intent in that part was not the designed use of those items nor as a strawman base, rather just off the top of my head examples used to show the slippery slope that we start down when we restrict the rights of all to control the very few. Though if we had an outbreak of murders with hammers I would bet some group somewhere would be calling for their control. Would that be the fault of every carpenter or just the few that used a hammer to commit the crimes?


This last part...I just don't see your point. No, I do NOT believe that the money would be better spent. So you are a law abiding citizen with no record. That's great. Now prove it. That's all anyone asks. You do not have a right to own machine guns and fully automatic weaponry, tanks, bazookas, ATG missles, GTA missiles, rocket launchers, grenades and the other myriad of extremely deadly weaponry that falls under the heading of "ballistic" or "projectile". That right was never GIVEN to you, and as such it cannot be taken AWAY from you. That is a "right" that was never granted.
I think my lack of being more specific about extreme gun control and also more specific about types of guns caused a miss communication here. I have no desire to own RPGs etc etc etc. Although I do know someone that owns a tank. Its weapons do not function but it is operational otherwise and is used for veterans parades and such.

You are legally permitted to own as many rifles, shotguns, handguns, semi-auto assault rifles, and even a certain amount of explosive powders. Nobody has EVER denied you those rights, and frankly I don't think anyone ever will. Is it too much to ask that you pass a test before being allowed to purchase them? I don't think so.
The article Rich posted was directed to just that, an attempt to sway the supreme court to deny individual rights in the 2nd amendment. No its not too much to ask to take a test, and I understand your thinking, but I think a test would do little to control improper use or intent. That said I would not be against taking a test. I have no problem with background checks and keeping guns from criminals as I stated before. Even those being treated for or diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Heck, I need to take a written and a road test to have a driver's license. Yet you expect that any Joe should be allowed to walk into any gun store and purchase any weapons he wants with no waiting period, background check, licensing process, or educational demands? That's fairly ludicrous in my opinion.

Gun control prevents normal, average, law abiding citizens from making snap purchases in the heat of anger or obsession. It prevents them from bypassing background checks that might otherwise prevent them from happening. It keeps guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals, and prevents them from being abused...even by law abiding citizens. I don't see a problem with that.

I like guns. I don't opwn any, currently, but when my daughter is older, I have intention of owning them, shooting them, hunting with them, and defenmding my life and my family with them. I also have every intention of taking my exams, my safety course, getting my certification, waiting my mandatory waiting periods, going through the background checks, and following the letter of the law to acquire them.

If you ask me...anyone that is truly a law abiding citizen with no ill intentions purposed for their guns, should have no reason to be upset with them being controlled. Do you really need a .50 caliber anything? Do you really think you have the right to fire off 100 rounds per second of 7.62mm jacketed rounds? Is there really any legitimate purpose to purchasing armor piercing rounds? Is there really any legitimate purpose to owning incendiaries and tracers?

The bottom line is quite simply...no. There is no legitimate reason why any gun owner would "need" any of those things. There is no legitimate purpose for a law abiding citizen to have access to those things. These weapons are not covered under our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Nobody has EVER tried to stop anyone with legal intent from acquiring hunting weapons or home defense weapons. You can purchase and own an incredible variety of handguns, rifles and shotguns. Anything else is unnecessary, and frankly...unwarranted. It certainly isn't a violation of your 2nd Ammendment rights to prevent you from owning any of the things listed above...
Again I will attribute most of this to my lack of being more specific. I agree that a wait period may help in the case of in the heat of the moment issues. If I want a 50 caliber gun it is not really a case of "need". I don't "need" a snake either but I wanted it and it was not illegal so I got it. Although I must add that bringing in missles, tanks, jacketed rounds, machine guns, armor piercing rounds, rocket launchers, hand grenades, etc is way outside anything I was thinking and quite straw man like on your part.

In the end I will chalk much of your response up to my lack of detail in my original post.
 
If that's your position though tsst, the BEST thing that could happen for you is for Obama (IF he were President) to try and challenge individual rights to bear arms. It would probably make him a one termer and it would (assuming he had one) cost him the majority in the House and Senate..
Americans don't like people messing with the Second Amendment.. I think my side knows that pretty well now.

But you said, "Although I must add that bringing in missles, tanks, jacketed rounds, machine guns, armor piercing rounds, rocket launchers, hand grenades, etc is way outside anything I was thinking and quite straw man like on your part."

I think depending on what you believe the 2nd Amendment is for, it's a very good thing for Chris to bring up. If it's a 'check' on big Government, it's not the least bit effective without these.. I don't meant to argue that we should have them, just that the argument doesn't make the same kind of sense that it once did. In fact I'd argue that it's the rest of the Constitution that protects us these days. If our government gets around those, we're powerless, with or without guns as you are describing...
 
If that's your position though tsst, the BEST thing that could happen for you is for Obama (IF he were President) to try and challenge individual rights to bear arms. It would probably make him a one termer and it would (assuming he had one) cost him the majority in the House and Senate..
Americans don't like people messing with the Second Amendment.. I think my side knows that pretty well now.
tom e, I am not sure where I stand on Obama or McCain. I was only commenting to the 2nd amendment part.

But you said, "Although I must add that bringing in missles, tanks, jacketed rounds, machine guns, armor piercing rounds, rocket launchers, hand grenades, etc is way outside anything I was thinking and quite straw man like on your part."

I think depending on what you believe the 2nd Amendment is for, it's a very good thing for Chris to bring up. If it's a 'check' on big Government, it's not the least bit effective without these.. I don't meant to argue that we should have them, just that the argument doesn't make the same kind of sense that it once did. In fact I'd argue that it's the rest of the Constitution that protects us these days. If our government gets around those, we're powerless, with or without guns as you are describing...
The second amendment is no doubt debatable.

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.

My interpretation is that "militia" and "the people" and "state" are nearly one in the same. So the right to keep and bear arms is by the people and for the security of the people. I don't interpret it as an intended means to overthrow government.

I may have misinterpreted tyflier's purpose for using the those items. I took it as an exaggerated way to call in question my supposed opposition to any and all gun control no matter what weapon. When I really only meant extreme control like banning or more so the challenge to individuals rights in the 2nd amendment and never in reference to WMD. I also don't believe everyone needs a nuke but I absolutely believe in my right to buy a handgun or rifle or shotgun etc.
 
That's great! If everyone were so cautious, there would be no need for controls. Unfortunately, there are FAR too many people that simply do not understand how to properly own a gun or properly use a gun. there are also far too many people willing to use them in the wrong way, and I believe that a bit of control is necessary to prevent these people from having guns. Waiting periods, background checks, etc...none of these should be cause for issue with a normal, upstanding, law abiding citizen. I'm sorry, but if you need a handgun, there is no reason you should expect to avoid a waiting period for a background and licensing check. If you plan to OWN an arsenal, you should be able to PROVE that you are competent and legally eligible to own such weapons. I don't have a problem with you owning them...I just see a STRONG need to control the people that do own them.

Really? Well if I already own guns, why in sam hill should I be required to wait any period of time before buying another?

And what exactly IS an arsenal, and how (not to mention WHO) decides what qualifies someone for having one? And why does someone who might have an interest in owning more guns than YOU may deem as normal need to be placed under any sort of CONTROL? Does this mean that any freedom is subject to approval? Meaning it can be denied at whim is some people just don't have the same interest? Is that really what FREEDOM is all about in this country now?


These comparisons don't happen that way. Gun are designed for one intent and purpose only...to kill. There simply is NO other reason for a gun other than to shoot and kill something, be it a rabbit, squirrel, deer, boar, bird or person. There simply is no other purpose for a gun besides killing.

Really? I wonder how many guns on this planet have PREVENTED someone from getting killed, mugged, raped, or injured? I suspect that number might be right up there with the number of people actually killed (in the sense of a WRONGFULL killing) by them. I happen to like collecting guns because they are actually a work of art combining different technologies, not to mention a test of skill for a person to use them competently to place one projectile as close as possible to the preceeding projectiles fired. Don't believe what you see on TV and the movies. Shooting a gun accurately is no easy task to accomplish. It takes quite a bit of skill and mastery of not only your own body, but being able to put all the right pieces together in terms of the right ammunition with the right gun.

All of your strawmen above are tools designed for one purpose and being used for a purpose other than it's intended purpose. When a person points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger effectively causing the death of another living creature, that "tool" is being used for the express purpose for which it was designed. There IS no other purpose.

Please see my above comment. MANY, MANY deaths and injuries have been averted by the mere pointing of a firearm at a potential murderer or thief without any trigger being fired nor anyone injured in the act of preventing such a crime. The original Colt 45 was called "The Equalizer" for a darn good reason.


This last part...I just don't see your point. No, I do NOT believe that the money would be better spent. So you are a law abiding citizen with no record. That's great. Now prove it. That's all anyone asks. You do not have a right to own machine guns and fully automatic weaponry, tanks, bazookas, ATG missles, GTA missiles, rocket launchers, grenades and the other myriad of extremely deadly weaponry that falls under the heading of "ballistic" or "projectile". That right was never GIVEN to you, and as such it cannot be taken AWAY from you. That is a "right" that was never granted.

A "right" does not have to be given. It exists until someone takes it away. Otherwise it isn't a right at all, it's a privilege. And yes, American citizens DID have the right to own all of those things without restriction. Prior to 1934, you could buy a *true* machine gun anyplace that typically sold guns without any restrictions whatsoever. Prior to 1968, you could buy Lahti anti-tank canons off of the back cover of Popular Electronics and have them sent to your doorstep, with NO RESTRICTIONS at all except that you had to be at least 18 years of age. As best I can recall, the world did not spiral down into a bloodbath of carnage and death because such powerful weapons were easily attained. Actually, when you think of it, things seem to have gotten much worse with society AFTER such things have been made much more difficult to obtain. Oh, btw, you can STILL legally own fully automatic machine guns (if you can find them and afford them) as long as you get a federal permit to do so along with approval from your local chief LEO in your county. The federal permit is actually a tax stamp, btw.

You are legally permitted to own as many rifles, shotguns, handguns, semi-auto assault rifles, and even a certain amount of explosive powders. Nobody has EVER denied you those rights, and frankly I don't think anyone ever will. Is it too much to ask that you pass a test before being allowed to purchase them? I don't think so.

That depends. It depends on what the test is and who makes the rules for it. The government has a history of a "camel's nose under the tent" sort of philosophy when it comes to legistated restrictions on the population. Look at the income tax code as an example. It's a far cry from now from what it was when first implemented.

Even laws passed prohibiting felons from owning guns seemed like a real reasonable thing to do at the time. But take the time and look up what sort of law violations are NOW considered as being a felony, by which your being convicted of them, will deny YOU the right to own a firearm. Quite a nose that camel has, eh?

Heck, I need to take a written and a road test to have a driver's license. Yet you expect that any Joe should be allowed to walk into any gun store and purchase any weapons he wants with no waiting period, background check, licensing process, or educational demands? That's fairly ludicrous in my opinion.

The justification for a driver's test is because you are using state and federal property upon which to drive your car. If I want to have a gun on my own propery, what business is it of anyone's that I want to do so? Yeah, waiting periods sound real spiffy until YOU find yourself the target of someone who intends to do you harm RIGHT NOW. Think you can talk them into waiting 3 to 15 days? As for the background check, yeah, if that can be done INSTANTLY, like it was sold to us, then fine with me. But when that background check is used as a defacto "you can't buy a gun unless the government ALLOWS you to do so" restriction, well, doesn't that kinda sorta "infringe" on your "right" to keep and bear arms, just a little teenie bit? And licensing? Check your history books to see how many times licensing (which is just another word for "registration") has been used to identify gun owners a few years before they were CONFISCATION by the government. Surely you have heard the phrase "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"? Well, thanks, but no thanks, some of us would rather not repeat that particular history lesson, thank you very much.

Gun control prevents normal, average, law abiding citizens from making snap purchases in the heat of anger or obsession. It prevents them from bypassing background checks that might otherwise prevent them from happening. It keeps guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals, and prevents them from being abused...even by law abiding citizens. I don't see a problem with that.

Yeah, certainly. If I am in the clutches of anger and obsession, the guns I currently have just won't do. I MUST have a new one in order to do the dirty deed, and certainly the waiting period and background check is going to help out my potential "victim" there.... :rolleyes: Seriously, don't you think that someone who REALLY REALLY needs a gun right now for self defense is going to feel comforted by the fact that just maybe someone else was spared an angered or drunk significant other NOT being able to buy a gun RIGHT NOW? Perhaps it is a tradeoff, but who gave the government the RIGHT to make that sort of decision? Didn't the person who felt they NEEDED a firearm for self defense RIGHT NOW have their RIGHT "infringed" in any way?

I like guns. I don't opwn any, currently, but when my daughter is older, I have intention of owning them, shooting them, hunting with them, and defenmding my life and my family with them. I also have every intention of taking my exams, my safety course, getting my certification, waiting my mandatory waiting periods, going through the background checks, and following the letter of the law to acquire them.

Good for you! And hopefully when that time comes, you will be able to do just that. I'm just not at all confident that this may come to pass. MANY MANY FFLs have already been driven out of business, and from the looks of things, that isn't getting better any time soon. I remember being able to buy guns just about anywhere you wanted to. Local hardware stores, Sears, even some 7-11s sold them. Look at the options now.....

And for your sake, I hope that someone doesn't threaten you or your family and you need to get a gun in a hurry. Or someone doesn't break into your home NOW, since you don't have a gun at the moment. Dialing 911 might get the cops there in time to catch the guy who murdered you and your family, but that will be small consolation to you, I would imagine. In the time it takes for you to punch those three buttons on the phone, you could have a baseball bat across the forehead.

If you ask me...anyone that is truly a law abiding citizen with no ill intentions purposed for their guns, should have no reason to be upset with them being controlled. Do you really need a .50 caliber anything? Do you really think you have the right to fire off 100 rounds per second of 7.62mm jacketed rounds? Is there really any legitimate purpose to purchasing armor piercing rounds? Is there really any legitimate purpose to owning incendiaries and tracers?

Well, I am truly a law abiding citizen with no ill intentions, but YES, I am upset with the government infringing on my RIGHT to buy, have, carry, shoot, or anything else I want to do with firearms. I most certainly have had my RIGHT infringed upon. I wouldn't have minded owning some fully automatic weapons just for the fun of it. But laws have made them very difficult to find and VERY expensive when you do find one available.

No I don't NEED a .50 caliber firearm, but I LIKE having three of them. Yes, I do have the right to fire off 100 rounds per second IF I own a gun that can do so. As for armor piercing rounds, sure, why not? Is there an implicit admission of wrong doing by having such things? Quite honestly, if someone shot you with a 30-06 full metal jacket and also with an armor piercing round, you wouldn't really notice any difference at all. And for your info, police departments are often issued armored piercing ammo (sometimes referred to as "penetrators" simply because more and more bad guys are using body armor during the commission of their crimes. So if the police forces find the need for them because of criminals, why should I be denied that extra margin of self defense as well?

As for incendiaries and tracers, heck, they are just FUN to shoot. And although this may be a foreign thought to some people, shooting can just be plain old FUN to do. And no, you DON'T have to kill something in order to have fun shooting, surprisingly enough.

The bottom line is quite simply...no. There is no legitimate reason why any gun owner would "need" any of those things. There is no legitimate purpose for a law abiding citizen to have access to those things. These weapons are not covered under our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Nobody has EVER tried to stop anyone with legal intent from acquiring hunting weapons or home defense weapons. You can purchase and own an incredible variety of handguns, rifles and shotguns. Anything else is unnecessary, and frankly...unwarranted. It certainly isn't a violation of your 2nd Ammendment rights to prevent you from owning any of the things listed above...

Needs? Is that word even used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Did the crafters of those documents REALLY claim that are rights should be based solely on NEEDS? Rights are NOT based on NEEDS, otherwise all of our RIGHTS would be slim pickings for certain. There is really very little a person NEEDS to live. Is that what you would wish to have our FREEDOM reduced to? Merely NEEDS?

The preamble to the US Constitution reads:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So tell me, of all those reasons WHY the US Constitution was created, how many of them are actually NEEDS?
 
I obviously won't be able to be able to veralize the way you all so eloquently did in your responses. But I feel the need to say this.
Although I am in no way against a new gun owner having to wait 3-5 days to purchase said gun. I in no way see the benefit of that for a prior gun owner.

I truly feel that if anyone tries to change the second amendment and succeeds that will just open the door to eradicating the 2nd amendment all together. THAT is something no one wants to see in this our lives or the lives of our future kids and grandkids. The minute you mess with one of the founding points of the constitution you have messed with what has made this great country so damn great!!

Why do you think there have been sooooo many people from other countries wanting to come to america each and every year. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE FREEDOMS most of us take for granted every single day.

If we start messing with those said freedoms how are we to stay the super power we have been since our inception?
 
I in no way see the benefit of that for a prior gun owner.

That is a good point. However, if you are a law abiding citizen, is waiting 3-5 days really that big of a deal? Is there any reason you'd need a new gun (if you already owned one) right then and there? I guess I just don't see a problem with waiting 3 days - its just not that long of a period.

I truly feel that if anyone tries to change the second amendment and succeeds that will just open the door to eradicating the 2nd amendment all together. THAT is something no one wants to see in this our lives or the lives of our future kids and grandkids. The minute you mess with one of the founding points of the constitution you have messed with what has made this great country so damn great!!

I've never met anyone who wants to eradicate guns completely. And if someone actually tried to do that, it would fail miserably. I don't own a gun (other than a BB gun), and never will. But it is a right guaranteed in the Constitution, and I'll be damned before I see it completely taken away. So I really don't think that will be an issue. If it ever got to that point, then I think things would already be so screwed up for it to come to that, that we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

However, I think limitations are reasonable. Yes, we have free speech, but you can run into a packed theatre and scream "FIRE!!" if there isn't one. There can, and should, be reasonable limits.

Why do you think there have been sooooo many people from other countries wanting to come to america each and every year. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE FREEDOMS most of us take for granted every single day.

If we start messing with those said freedoms how are we to stay the super power we have been since our inception?

I agree that we live in the best country on the earth. Thanks in large part to the freedoms we do enjoy! :cheers:
 
That is a good point. However, if you are a law abiding citizen, is waiting 3-5 days really that big of a deal? Is there any reason you'd need a new gun (if you already owned one) right then and there? I guess I just don't see a problem with waiting 3 days - its just not that long of a period.

Yes, that does sound reasonable on the surface, now doesn't it? But suppose for a moment that you do not live close to a decent gun store, or you want to go to a large gunshow that is several hours away with the intent of buying a new gun. Having to make that long drive TWICE in order to pick out and buy, and then be able to take possession of the gun isn't an unnecessary burden to have to go through? Or you happen to be driving across state and stop in at a gun store and find something you have been looking for for a long time. Gee, do you really want to have to drive back there 3-5 days later just to pick it up?

Or further suppose that you get involved with an association with another person that turns ugly FAST and unexpectedly. You feel threatened by the sudden change in demeanor from the other party and would like to have some sort of protection RIGHT NOW. How long is that 3-5 waiting period going to seem to you then?

Any other business would go ballistic if the sale of their merchandise was subjected to this type of restriction. When push comes to shove, the PURPOSE of the waiting period has nothing at all to do about protecting people from the rash decisions of another. It is a clever ploy by the anti-gun movement to hassle the right to buy a firearm to death. The more hassle and painful the process is, the less likely people will jump through all the hoops to do so.

I've never met anyone who wants to eradicate guns completely. And if someone actually tried to do that, it would fail miserably. I don't own a gun (other than a BB gun), and never will. But it is a right guaranteed in the Constitution, and I'll be damned before I see it completely taken away. So I really don't think that will be an issue. If it ever got to that point, then I think things would already be so screwed up for it to come to that, that we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

Personally, I believe that yes, people who DO want to ban the private ownership of weapons really do exist. And yes, some of them are in Washington DC trying to get the support to be able to do such a thing. Anyone who denies the evidence of this is just being naive and overly trusting of their fellow humans. Especially those who get in the position of having POWER over others. Heck, I remember when the first assault weapon bill was passed, beforehand I spoke to several people about it, and nearly all of them were incredulous. They said (in effect): "In America? That just won't happen in this country!" Well, it DID. Here in America. So don't believe for an instant that it can't.

Do you REALLY think the Jewish in Germany knew why they were being denied gun ownership? Do you think the German government was truthfull about their intentions? Do you think this was the only time in human history that the populace was lied to in order to disarm them prior to a large part of the population being MURDERED? Do you think this cannot nor will not ever happen again? No one likes to think such things about America or their own government, I'm sure. But I doubt anyone could make a serious argument that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

However, I think limitations are reasonable. Yes, we have free speech, but you can run into a packed theatre and scream "FIRE!!" if there isn't one. There can, and should, be reasonable limits.

"Reasonable" pretty much depends on who is defining that term. Passing a law whereby yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded move theater is one thing, and certainly sounds reasonable to most folks. However, the person doing the yelling would be arrested after the fact and duly convicted and punished for their indiscretion. However, in the case of firearms ownership, the analogy pretty much falls apart in that in a like sense, everyone going into that movie theater would have to have their vocal cords removed prior to entrance to make CERTAIN that they could NOT yell "FIRE!". Basically, there is a presumption of guilt based on the fact that you COULD do something illegal and proactive steps are made to prevent you from doing so. Regardless of whether you have the intention or not. Once the firearms industry is put out of business because they no longer have anyone to sell to, that industry cannot be rebuilt over night IF it suddenly comes to mind that having firearms was actually a good thing to do. I really don't think most people clearly see what is at stake with this issue.

I agree that we live in the best country on the earth. Thanks in large part to the freedoms we do enjoy! :cheers:

Yes, exactly. Which is EXACTLY why everyone should defend those freedoms that we have tooth and nail. Even further, we should fight to regain those freedoms that have already been taken from us. Even if we don't agree with the fact that someone else may have a freedom that we don't particularly want them to have. THAT is the true cost of freedom: Having to put up with someone else enjoying the same freedom YOU have in a manner you may not particularly agree with or like.
 
Couldn't someone have committed a crime since the last time they bought a gun? Or a be under investigation since then? That seems fairly obvious to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

And Rich while you say we should defend those freedoms tooth and nail, why does it appear you only mean the one? The constitution has been under attack for 8 years in much worse ways than 3 day waiting periods. And that means your freedoms. Why don't we ever hear criticism from the right for George Bush and what he HAS done, but we do hear this suspicion for Obama and what he MIGHT do..:shrugs:
 
Back
Top