It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[jon_berzerk]

The biggest shocker for me is Burr. His days are numbered.

all of them need to be forced to step aside

That one name has to be a typo Jeff FLAKE?

i BET THE PEOPLE OF Arizona ARE PISSED.

they should be

all sixteen of them are willing to cut the throats

of Americans for a little more power

 

[hortysir]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288108-obama-wants-to-raise-tobacco-taxes-again.html

...

Yeah, I know. It just really pisses me off when the poor and middle class get hit with a "luxury" tax increases from either party - but especially from Nanny Obama.

Lakhota?

Is that you?

 

[Lakhota]

It's time to give the gun nuts the tobacco treatment.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Tobacco isn't a constitutional issue unlike guns. You need to have a constitutional convention.

 

[Lakhota]

Tobacco isn't a constitutional issue unlike guns. You need to have a constitutional convention.

No, ya don't.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and noted that future limitations 'will have to be decided in future cases' - NY Daily News

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tobacco isn't a constitutional issue unlike guns. You need to have a constitutional convention.

No, ya don't.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and noted that future limitations 'will have to be decided in future cases' - NY Daily News

 

[NLT]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

Hardcore liberals Gun Control Nuts need to be hearing two things " NO" and "NO".

 

[legaleagle_45]

Tobacco isn't a constitutional issue unlike guns. You need to have a constitutional convention.

No, ya don't.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and noted that future limitations 'will have to be decided in future cases' - NY Daily News

Indeed, Scalia noted that the 2nd Amend, like most other rights, is not unlimited. Thus, the 1st Amend is not unlimited either and laws can be passed prohibiting human sacrifice in religious ceremonies. This does not mean it is subject to any limitation your heart desires, and that we can also pass laws which ban Baptists and Methodists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

Your opinion is laughable.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So what's the plan for getting the guns away from the criminals?

Would it be asking too much for that to happen before citizens are disarmed?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
So what's the plan for getting the guns away from the criminals?

Gun control has nothing to do with keeping guns away from criminals.

 

[Lakhota]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

 

[OriginalShroom]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

We already did.

That is why we have so many gun laws on the books.

Now it is time for the gun grabbers to shut up and be happy with what they have gotten, because they aren't getting any more.

 

[Lakhota]

NRA extremist loons are the greatest threat to our future guns rights. Their bully days are coming to an end.

We're lucky to be allowed private gun ownership - because the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

 

[OriginalShroom]

NRA extremist loons are the greatest threat to our future guns rights. Their bully days are coming to an end.

We're lucky to be allowed private gun ownership - because the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Right there show just how mud dumb you are.

The 2nd Amendment is no more obsolete than the 1st, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 10th are.

 

[Lakhota]

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.​

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

More: The Second Amendment Is All for Gun Control

 

[OriginalShroom]

Quoting gun grabbers isn't going to persuade me to think you are right.

All it is doing is showing that you don't consider the other side.

I know it is a trite comment. I know that it is perfect for a Bumper sticker. But I believe it with all my heart and have ingrained these words into my very soul.

From my cold, dead hands. Molon Labe.

And yes, I will even fight, use them, to defend your right to say I shouldn't be able to own them.

Why?

Because I believe in the Constitution. ALL of the Constitution. Not just the parts I like.

 

[MisterBeale]

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.​

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

More: The Second Amendment Is All for Gun Control

The founders also believed, like myself, that a standing army was, next to a national corporate monopoly banks, the greatest threat to liberty.

Soooo. . . I'll make you a deal, eh? I'll agree to any gun control law you want to put on the books if you give me two things to secure my liberty.

1) We get rid of the US Armed forces. That includes; The Army, The Navy, The Marines, The Air Force. From now on all national defense will be taken care of by the National Guard forces only when the nation is under direct threat of having it's borders be invaded. (We can keep the ICBM's as a deterrent if you like though.) When a true crises is in the works and the nation IS invaded, Congress can authorize the creation of an Army, etc. as it has done in the past.

And

2) We audit Fort Knox immediately, and dissolve the Federal Reserve, handing over all currency and coinage making back to the Treasury where it constitutionally belongs.

Till then, screw it. Everyone ought to have a gun to keep themselves safe from the international fascists that are gunning (no pun intended) for their freedom.

 

[Geaux4it]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

Um, no we don't

Next

-Geaux

 

[chikenwing]

NRA extremist loons are the greatest threat to our future guns rights. Their bully days are coming to an end.

We're lucky to be allowed private gun ownership - because the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

You would be happy living in a cage,having someone feed you everyday??

Lucky???!!!!

people like you that are the problem.This is the peoples country,WE make the rules.

How's that nose ring fitting.

The 2nd is no more obsolete than air and water. Fact its becoming more relevant daily,from the idiotic feel good BS from people like yourself.