Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

[mbdorfer]

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:

Could you explain to me what George Bush HAS done to jeopardize our freedoms?

 

[Chip]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

 

[tom e]

Yeah Mike, check my first post in this thread..

Here's the last link from that post.. It's the most in depth..

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

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?

A valid point. I wonder if there could be a compromise, such as getting a "pre-background" check before a show. So that if you go to the show, you are already "checked" and could present the necessary documents so that you can just walk out, but so that criminals or whatever can't just walk out with a gun.

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?

Methinks that anyone involved in some type of "association" that could turn bad to the point of needing a gun, is probably already carrying one or has immediate access to one. To be frank, I think this is grasping at straws with this scenario...

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.

If it saves one life, it was worth it. I think a much more likely scenario would be a man finds his wife in bed with another man and goes to buy a gun. He's not thinking rationally and intends to do something stupid in the heat of the moment. Now, lets say this man has to wait 5 days - maybe he cools off in that time and decides that throwing his life away with a rash decision isn't so great.

Maybe jumping through hoops sucks, but we do it for all sorts of things: passports, driver's licenses, etc. But at the end of the day its to keep us safe.

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.

I'm not so naive to think that no one wants to ban guns out right, but I think they're in the extreme minority. And even if they did pass some law, it would most likely be turned over, especially with the make up of the current SCOTUS.

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.

Godwin's law at its finest! Nazi Germany isn't even comparable to a waiting period. I'm not even going to bother with this one.

"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.

With all due respect, you're a being a little alarmist here. The firearm industry isn't going out of business now or anytime soon. And the whole idea with "reasonable" restrictions is just that. They're reasonable. Waiting three days is reasonable to buy a gun. It's just not that long of a time. Three months, unreasonable. But three days IMO isn't unreasonable.

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.

I can't think of any freedoms that have been taken from us?

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.

Not when it poses a threat to society - such as unfettered access to firearms.

 

[jazzgeek]

Any other business would go ballistic if the sale of their merchandise was subjected to this type of restriction.

And yet, there are numerous situations where a "cooling off" period is allowed for certain transactions; off the top of my head, I can think of real estate and automotive purchases. And yet, companies like Ford and Coldwell Banker aren't "going ballistic".

"Reasonable" pretty much depends on who is defining that term.

Not in a legal sense; there are strict guidelines and case law that has determined what a "reasonable doubt" is, what "reasonable search" is, what "reasonable seizure" is.

Dale

 

[Rich Z]

I can't think of any freedoms that have been taken from us?

**choke**.......

No other response is necessary, I think....

 

[Austin M]

I have to say I'm with Rich on this one when it comes to the second amendment. I think Rich stated the strongest case so far in this debate. Denny it or not, there are some very wealthy people and organizations that want to ban personal ownership of guns, and are actively pursuing it in our legal system. A sweeper salesman doesn't knock on your door and ask if you want a sweeper. He knocks on your door and asks if you want a set of FREE knives! The ani-gun lobbyist are the same in that they will play to the middle ground and say we want to do what's "reasonable". People can say, "Ya that's reasonable" to the lobbyist and "Free knives! Sure come on in" to the sweeper salesman, but once they're in and the truth comes out you just might end up with something you don't need.

There are some points I'd like to add as well. In my opinion what ever restrictions that are imposed are imposed on your law abiding citizens, for the most part. Most criminals have direct access to guns without having to go to a store and they don't have to wait a week to get them. Criminals are still killing people every day with ILLEGAL automatic guns. Even though a law abiding citizen can not get one legally. There is a dark criminal underbelly in this country. Look at the woman news reporter that just died from a brutal attach in her home. It's easy for middle class Americans to think that America's criminal underbelly is contained in jails and low income areas, but this couldn't be further from the truth. You could very easily need a gun for protection while on vacation or traveling. There are a lot of freaks out there!

Not in a legal sense; there are strict guidelines and case law that has determined what a "reasonable doubt" is, what "reasonable search" is, what "reasonable seizure" is.

Sorry Dale, those strict guidelines don't make me feel secure. Reasonable does depend on who's defining it. "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" comes to mind for "reasonable doubt". As for reasonable search and seizure, all you need is a cop with an attitude for an unreasonable search and seizure. The court system will take the cops side the majority of the time. If you want a jurry trial have fun paying for that!

I think a much more likely scenario would be a man finds his wife in bed with another man and goes to buy a gun. He's not thinking rationally and intends to do something stupid in the heat of the moment. Now, lets say this man has to wait 5 days - maybe he cools off in that time and decides that throwing his life away with a rash decision isn't so great.
If someone finds their wife in a compromising position and they are so irrational that they are going to kill, would they really seek a gun store or would they just grab a baseball bat, kitchen knife, rock, something near by? Lets say they did go out, find a gun store, decide what kind of gun to buy, get the right bullets, read the owners manual, hunt down and find the lover and finally, kill them. If they are not rational after all that, are they really going to be rational after three days?

 

[tom e]

OK, so let's play devil's advocate here. While the current Republican administration is shredding the constitution, we are better off because they aren't after the second amendment. The president is looking more and more like an emperor every day, but we still have guns. Our ability to peaceably protest what's going on is limited (especially when and where it counts more), people tap and listen to our phone calls with or without cause, and should they just CALL us terrorists, they can hold us overseas in prisons incommunicado and torture us if they see fit. Yes indefinitely and without charges. No need to even attempt a case against us. No questions asked. Our government can do this now, did you know that?
But, they aren't messing with the second amendment.. (With which, by the way, you're STILL helpless to protect yourself from the them if they wanted you.)
Who's not seeing the big picture here?

I think you all are watching the wrong canary..

 

[jazzgeek]

A sweeper salesman doesn't knock on your door and ask if you want a sweeper. He knocks on your door and asks if you want a set of FREE knives! The ani-gun lobbyist are the same in that they will play to the middle ground and say we want to do what's "reasonable". People can say, "Ya that's reasonable" to the lobbyist and "Free knives! Sure come on in" to the sweeper salesman, but once they're in and the truth comes out you just might end up with something you don't need.

And a organization, when cornered and trying to "defend their turf" doesn't attempt to give away "FREE knives", but instead uses irrational fear to charge the issue....

"ZOMG, people have been using their free knives to assault _____!!!!"

"Candidate X has the most conservative/liberal voting record EV-ER!!!"

"If we lose the vote on bill/election Y, this country will go to hell!"

Also, I really don't think it's the best tactic to mention "lobbyists" when speaking of 2nd Amendment issues, given that most people know - be they pro- or anti-gun control - of the massive influence of the NRA's lobby.

There is a dark criminal underbelly in this country.

My point exactly....were you expecting the "criminal underbelly" to be all puppies and rainbows?

Look at the woman news reporter that just died from a brutal attach in her home.

What aspect of her tragedy gives her a higher priority/profile than the numerous brutal attacks that occur daily? Because she's been on the teevee?

It's easy for middle class Americans to think that America's criminal underbelly is contained in jails and low income areas, but this couldn't be further from the truth. You could very easily need a gun for protection while on vacation or traveling.

It's just as easy to presume the criminal underbelly is as pervasive as you make it seem to be.

Barry Glassner's book, Culture of Fear, is an excellent expose on our conditioning over events that, from a statistical standpoint, have little bearing on our everyday lives. In many cases, your chance of "victimization" is MUCH lower then you believe it to be, but we've been conditioned to think otherwise....thanks to filters like the old maxim of television journalism: "If it bleeds, it leads."

There are a lot of freaks out there!

So I should take heed from this anecdote? Noted.

Sorry Dale, those strict guidelines don't make me feel secure.

Would it be safe for me to assume, then, that you'd prefer to live in a "Nation of Men" as opposed to a "Nation of Laws"?

Reasonable does depend on who's defining it.

Again, NO, not in a legal context. Precedents and case law have this definition shored up.

"If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" comes to mind for "reasonable doubt".

Maybe for you - for me, it reminds me of INEPT PROSECUTION. Vincent Bugliosi, who put Charles Manson away, documented how BADLY that case was bungled in his book, "Outrage".

And yet, after dropping the ball in the criminal case, OJ was convicted in the civil case, wherein the rules of evidence and determination of guilt ("preponderance of the evidence" versus "beyond a reasonable doubt") are MUCH more lax than in a criminal case.

As for reasonable search and seizure, all you need is a cop with an attitude for an unreasonable search and seizure. The court system will take the cops side the majority of the time.

Again, this is anecdotal. Cite some objective data to prove this point.

But if you're going to stick with anecdotes....this MAY have been true in times prior to security cameras and other technologies to corroborate accounts, but the trend seems to be reversing. Have you not seen video of rogue cops tasering people that had no need for it? Have said cops not been suspended/fired/prosecuted for their misdeeds?

If you want a jurry trial have fun paying for that!

And if you want a rogue state where we're a nation of men and not laws, have fun with that.


Dale

 

[Chip]

I think you all are watching the wrong canary..

Respectfully, there are no wrong canaries.

 

[Rich Z]

Also, I really don't think it's the best tactic to mention "lobbyists" when speaking of 2nd Amendment issues, given that most people know - be they pro- or anti-gun control - of the massive influence of the NRA's lobby.

Dale

Really? So where EXACTLY does the NRA get it's power from? Do you think, perhaps, that the 4 MILLION members might have anything to do with that influence? None of which, as far as I know, were forced to join up at gunpoint. Quite the opposite, really, as I believe most joined up because they have become afraid that soon there won't be the possibility for them to be on the non-business end of a gun without having an organization such as the NRA to help US keep our gun rights.

So if anyone has a problem with the NRA, their REAL problem is with the will of the MEMBERS of that organization. And I certainly DO hope that politicians will pay close attention to an organization that can strongly influence 4 MILLION votes in US elections. Votes from the MEMBERS of that organization that has hired lobbyists to bring that message home to our elected "representatives".....

 

[Rich Z]

OK, so let's play devil's advocate here. While the current Republican administration is shredding the constitution, we are better off because they aren't after the second amendment. The president is looking more and more like an emperor every day, but we still have guns. Our ability to peaceably protest what's going on is limited (especially when and where it counts more), people tap and listen to our phone calls with or without cause, and should they just CALL us terrorists, they can hold us overseas in prisons incommunicado and torture us if they see fit. Yes indefinitely and without charges. No need to even attempt a case against us. No questions asked. Our government can do this now, did you know that?
But, they aren't messing with the second amendment.. (With which, by the way, you're STILL helpless to protect yourself from the them if they wanted you.)
Who's not seeing the big picture here?

I think you all are watching the wrong canary..

No, not at all. I hope no one thinks I am particularly happy with George Bush as president. Fact of the matter is, he was the only real choice I had to vote for in his past elections. He was not the BEST choice of president at all, only the BETTER choice when it came to choosing between him and Al Gore and John Kerry. In a like vein, I really don't like John McCain at all. But the more I learn about Obama, the more I think that I would prefer ANYONE other than Obama to be in the oval office in January.

Also, as an aside, to be quite frank about it, I am very concerned about WHY our options are so darn piss poor across the board for who we are allowed to vote for. There obviously is power at work here behind the scenes to bring these puppets to the forefront to allow us to play make believe at controlling our own destiny via the ballot box. Seriously, do you REALLY think any one person, or group of persons, with REAL power would allow themselves to be in the position where their subjects could VOTE them out of power? It always seems we are being allowed to vote for two candidates who are on one hand BAD, and on the other hand WORSE. None of which will help to make this country better, only making it worse, more or less gradually, depending on which one wins the election.

 

[98xjsport]

When a common person represenative of this country cannot run for president, the system is broken...

 

[tom e]

Respectfully, there are no wrong canaries.

I mean you're watching the canary with a gas mask on, while the other 4-5 canaries are fluttering on the cage floor.

Let's be real. If the choices are bad and worse, than you're just going to have to show me worse. Obama hasn't done a thing against the 2nd amendment as of now. GWB has all but shredded the whole document. Let's see that case made, that bad/worse case. I'm not going to take it on faith.. As for gun control, where in the second amendment does it say there won't be a waiting period or a background check. I know you may not like it, but it just isn't a constitutional issue, it's just something you don't like..

I know that there's probably nobody out there in the nation who thinks Bush has done a great job. I just mean that when this lesser of two evils phrase gets thrown about it's just a simple way of having your cake and eating it too. 'See I said I wasn't happy about Bush (while I voted for him)'.. If the Constitution is a document you hold dear, Bush is the worst choice of Presidents this nation has ever had.. It's ironic to me that someone would hold him in higher regard than his opponents and talk about the constitution at the same time. If Kerry and Gore had won, we'd still have a proper Constitution and balance of Presidential Power. :shrugs:

 

[susang]

I hate these arguements, but here I am. I was brought up in a hunting family and I'm proud to have put food on the table.
I am here to add a little levity and thought to this topic. A couple weeks ago while sitting with some fellow quilters, one thought potatoes grow on trees, another thought some how meat got in a package without the animal being killed and yes they were serious. The conversation then went to handguns and how some of them had passed the test and now had thier guns. WHAT you think potatoes grow on trees and you're carrying a gun, I know this is a logical fallacy, but really. One then went on to explain how her husband was afraid she would hit a deer with her car and not kill it, so she had the gun to euthanize the deer. See these are the people that scare me, they have know idea about potatoes or deer.
Please try to see the humor here a wacky quilter with a handgun either chasing the poor deer down to finish it off or calling 411 to get the number for 911 to have her car towed because the deer although dead killed her car too. Not to mention the number of wild turkeys we have this years running amuk, or maybe it was too much WildTurkey in the cup. I don't know but my gun is safe in the safe where it does absolutely no good for anything, but hey I feel OK having it there.

 

[Chip]

As for gun control, where in the second amendment does it say there won't be a waiting period or a background check. I know you may not like it, but it just isn't a constitutional issue, it's just something you don't like..

The constitution could never be specific enough to cover any possible legislation that might pop up hundreds of years in the future. I have to give the gun owners their due. Smokers were too compliant. They moved to the smoking section, then the bar, then outside, and now can't even smoke outdoors or in bars in some jurisdictions. Mostly because of 2nd hand-smoking pseudo-science. If gun owners had acted similarly, you know damn well purchasing a firearm would be a different situation today.

 

[tom e]

If gun owners had acted similarly, you know damn well purchasing a firearm would be a different situation today.

Agreed! So they didn't and guns are legal.. I'm happy about that! Don't try to make me into someone else, I'm a gun owner myself..

I just don't understand voting against the Constitution because you THINK someone has plans to do away with the one portion of it. I'd think as a Libertarian, you'd REALLY get that..

 

[Rich Z]

I mean you're watching the canary with a gas mask on, while the other 4-5 canaries are fluttering on the cage floor.

Let's be real. If the choices are bad and worse, than you're just going to have to show me worse. Obama hasn't done a thing against the 2nd amendment as of now. GWB has all but shredded the whole document. Let's see that case made, that bad/worse case. I'm not going to take it on faith..

Hmm, I thought Obama was running against McCain, not Bush. Are you saying you are choosing Obama over McCain BECAUSE of Bush? And the HISTORY of Obama's voting record is not sufficient evidence about his stance on gun control?

As for showing you worse, who was president when that lame brained "assault weapon ban" was passed? Democrat or Republican? Firearms were banned SOLELY on the fact that they looked MEAN, and realistically nothing else. Historically, Democrats have as a group ALWAYS been leaning towards anti gun policy. Right now they are trying to obscure that fact with obfuscation and blatant lies.

As for gun control, where in the second amendment does it say there won't be a waiting period or a background check. I know you may not like it, but it just isn't a constitutional issue, it's just something you don't like..

Do you actually know what the Second Amendment says? If so, please tell me what the word "infringed" means....... Like when used in a sentence such as "my right to obtain a firearm has been infringed....."

I know that there's probably nobody out there in the nation who thinks Bush has done a great job. I just mean that when this lesser of two evils phrase gets thrown about it's just a simple way of having your cake and eating it too. 'See I said I wasn't happy about Bush (while I voted for him)'.. If the Constitution is a document you hold dear, Bush is the worst choice of Presidents this nation has ever had.. It's ironic to me that someone would hold him in higher regard than his opponents and talk about the constitution at the same time. If Kerry and Gore had won, we'd still have a proper Constitution and balance of Presidential Power. :shrugs:

Says who? Is this your "faith" kicking in gear now based on pure hope or do you have some sort of inside information that wasn't privy to the rest of us voting folks? For all we know (and what evidently a LOT of people who voted THOUGHT), things could be MUCH worse right now if those two had become president over Bush. Not that Bush is any prince, but those are the choices we had. Personally I don't see how you can substantiate such a claim at all. You can't possibly KNOW such a thing. Unless you are psychic, of course, but I kind of doubt that, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time on conversations like this, knowing the outcome....

 

[Chip]

Agreed! So they didn't and guns are legal.. I'm happy about that! Don't try to make me into someone else, I'm a gun owner myself..

I didn't try to make you into anything, just responded with my beliefs. I meant nothing personal.

I just don't understand voting against the Constitution because you THINK someone has plans to do away with the one portion of it. I'd think as a Libertarian, you'd REALLY get that..

How am I voting against the constitution?!? I haven't even alluded to how I am voting, and am honestly considering staying home. That seems about as effective as voting 3rd party again.:cheers:

 

[kathylove]

Exactly!

"...Seriously, do you REALLY think any one person, or group of persons, with REAL power would allow themselves to be in the position where their subjects could VOTE them out of power?..." (RZ)

You would be AMAZED at the great lengths the "ruling parties" have gone to deny ballot access to Libertarians and other 3rd parties. The Republicans in particular have spent A LOT of money going to court, even appealing court decisions to allow access in La, getting courts to overturn ballot access already approved. They have spent a lot of time and money to deny access not only in La, but in Ky, Pa, Ct, NH and others.

Maybe the GOP is even more worried than the Dems because Libertarians probably vote R more often than D. I am sure that both powerful parties will do whatever they can to be sure your only real choice is between the two of them.

I also have to agree with the smoker analogy. Nobody hates cigarette smoke worse than I do, or enjoys its absence as much, now that it is illegal. But as a Libertarian, I always felt that it should be up to each business to decide what their customers want, and up to me to patronize those that decide to ban smoking. But I passionately voted against the government ban, even though I enjoy the benefits. I think that every time the government makes these decisions FOR us, the next time it is a little easier to slice something else away as well, whether it has to do with smoking, guns, keeping animals, or anything else that "used" to be a freedom a short time ago.

We now have a law in Florida to restrict ownership of large snakes and Nile monitor lizards (venomous already had a similar permit). It takes a $100 per year permit and answering some questions. On the surface, it seems very reasonable. After all, who NEEDS a giant snake, or venomous snake?

However, the wording of the legislation was kept open ended so that new species may be added as "needed". When the question is asked of your neighbors "Who NEEDS a corn / king / milk snake, anyway - why shouldn't they be on the list, too?", what do you think most neighbors would say? Where does it end?

I would like to see all animal keepers stand up for each others' rights, all smokers, gun owners, and other minorities who are not "mainstream", stand up for each other. Divide and conquer really does work! If only there was an organization that wanted to stand up for ALL rights, no matter how "weird" they seem to others.

Actually, there is an organization like that. It is the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, they spend way too much of their limited resources just fighting the "big guys" for their rightful place on the ballot. They certainly don't have zillions of dollars to advertise like the Ds and Rs.