Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Alvin]

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

That has to be incorrect....

 

[Emma]

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

That has to be incorrect....

It is incorrect:



Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 093-1048

Public Act 093-1048

SB2165 Enrolled LRB093 15639 RLC 41247 b

AN ACT concerning criminal law.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding
Section 24-10 as follows:

(720 ILCS 5/24-10 new)

Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms;
affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative
defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits,
regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if
the individual who is charged with the violation used the
firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as
defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.


Effective Date: 11/16/2004

Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the charge.

IOW, even in places that DO prohibit or restrict gun ownership, this statute allows the defense to claim self-defense as a justification for breaking those laws (i.e. someone charged under the prohibitive gun law).


Missourian is an honest guy. I'm sure he'll concede this point.

 

[Zona]

Obama's a smart enough politician to know he doesn't have the backing AND it would be political suicide if he tried. The fear mongers did however manage to drive up prices and create a temporary shortage of some calibers of ammo. Thanks for nothing guys and gals!

And the sheeple flocked. Hell, I am having a hard time getting ammo just to target shoot now.

Thanks mr. Obama for taking away my guns.

Sheeple. The NRA are cracking up. Dumb asses.

Auto-Zona, you know just as well as I that if the political climate was even slightly favorable towards his anti-gun platform Obama would institute any restriction/anti-gun law he could in a heart beat and not think twice about it.

Wouldn't every politician in history? Think about what you just said, if the platform was favorable, wouldn't every politician sign in what he wanted if the people wanted it? If Obama thinks he doesn't like assault weapons on the streets and 90 percent of America backed him, why would he not do it? If bush wanted to go to Iraq and 90 percent of America wanted him not to go, he would go.

Its called politics, right?

 

[Zona]

FACT: He can be against it all he wants, unless there's a Constitutional amendment, it makes no difference.

I agree with ya Emma, but that doesn't take into account the creativity shown by the gun grabbers.



There are ways, and then there are ways.

None of these violates the second amendment.


FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

so far what has he done to take away your weapons?

Question for you..dont you think its a career ender to even hint at this as the president? Like him or not, you have to admit Obama is smarter than that.

 

[Missourian]

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

That has to be incorrect....

It is incorrect:



Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 093-1048

Public Act 093-1048

SB2165 Enrolled LRB093 15639 RLC 41247 b

AN ACT concerning criminal law.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding
Section 24-10 as follows:

(720 ILCS 5/24-10 new)

Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms;
affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative
defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits,
regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if
the individual who is charged with the violation used the
firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as
defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.


Effective Date: 11/16/2004

Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the charge.

IOW, even in places that DO prohibit or restrict gun ownership, this statute allows the defense to claim self-defense as a justification for breaking those laws (i.e. someone charged under the prohibitive gun law).


Missourian is an honest guy. I'm sure he'll concede this point.

Thanks Emma, allow me to return the compliment and say the same about you.

Even when we disagree, I always look forward to and enjoy reading your contributions.

I do agree with the synopsis of this legislation.

The unfortunate part is President Obama voted against it.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/93/senate/09300SB2165_03252004_020000T.pdf

Therefore the fact remains, Barack Obama no vote would have allowed criminal prosecution people who use firearms in self-defense.

 

[Missourian]

FACT: He can be against it all he wants, unless there's a Constitutional amendment, it makes no difference.

I agree with ya Emma, but that doesn't take into account the creativity shown by the gun grabbers.



There are ways, and then there are ways.

None of these violates the second amendment.


FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

so far what has he done to take away your weapons?

Question for you..dont you think its a career ender to even hint at this as the president? Like him or not, you have to admit Obama is smarter than that.

Yes, I think President Obama is smart and politically savvy.

I also believe he is extremely anti-gun and will make every attempt to chip away at gun rights.

But it's his policies I am opposed to, not him personally.

 

[Zona]

I agree with ya Emma, but that doesn't take into account the creativity shown by the gun grabbers.



There are ways, and then there are ways.

None of these violates the second amendment.


FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

so far what has he done to take away your weapons?

Question for you..dont you think its a career ender to even hint at this as the president? Like him or not, you have to admit Obama is smarter than that.

Yes, I think President Obama is smart and politically savvy.

I also believe he is extremely anti-gun and will make every attempt to chip away at gun rights.

But it's his policies I am opposed to, not him personally.

I will agree with you if you can show me where he did anything against gun ownership since becoming president.

ANYTHING!

 

[Missourian]

so far what has he done to take away your weapons?

Question for you..dont you think its a career ender to even hint at this as the president? Like him or not, you have to admit Obama is smarter than that.

Yes, I think President Obama is smart and politically savvy.

I also believe he is extremely anti-gun and will make every attempt to chip away at gun rights.

But it's his policies I am opposed to, not him personally.

I will agree with you if you can show me where he did anything against gun ownership since becoming president.

ANYTHING!

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban

President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.​

At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, “there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban.”


​

And why was President Obama unable to achieve this goal?

Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.

​

So President Obama abandon his objective.

By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. “None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com​

 

[Ringel05]

And the sheeple flocked. Hell, I am having a hard time getting ammo just to target shoot now.

Thanks mr. Obama for taking away my guns.

Sheeple. The NRA are cracking up. Dumb asses.

Auto-Zona, you know just as well as I that if the political climate was even slightly favorable towards his anti-gun platform Obama would institute any restriction/anti-gun law he could in a heart beat and not think twice about it.

Wouldn't every politician in history? Think about what you just said, if the platform was favorable, wouldn't every politician sign in what he wanted if the people wanted it? If Obama thinks he doesn't like assault weapons on the streets and 90 percent of America backed him, why would he not do it? If bush wanted to go to Iraq and 90 percent of America wanted him not to go, he would go.

Its called politics, right?

You missed the caveat "slightly" (that would be no where near 90%) and no, not every politician would, besides political climate numbers are routinely misstated to promote or act on agendas. You should know that also.

 

[Zona]

Yes, I think President Obama is smart and politically savvy.

I also believe he is extremely anti-gun and will make every attempt to chip away at gun rights.

But it's his policies I am opposed to, not him personally.

I will agree with you if you can show me where he did anything against gun ownership since becoming president.

ANYTHING!

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban

President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.​

At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, “there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban.”


​

And why was President Obama unable to achieve this goal?

Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.

​

So President Obama abandon his objective.

By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. “None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com​

So in other words, he has done nothing towards taking away your guns. Nothing. Yet, the NRA scared the shit out of morons and made them buy up all the ammo.

Dumb asses.

 

[Missourian]

I will agree with you if you can show me where he did anything against gun ownership since becoming president.

ANYTHING!

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban

President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.​

At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, “there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban.”


​

And why was President Obama unable to achieve this goal?

Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.

​

So President Obama abandon his objective.

By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. “None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com​

So in other words, he has done nothing towards taking away your guns. Nothing. Yet, the NRA scared the shit out of morons and made them buy up all the ammo.

Dumb asses.

Come on Zona, that's just silly.

If I said "I'm going to burn your house down, Zona." and you believe I have every intention of doing just what I said I was going to do and I have a long history of burning down houses, you are going to take absolutely no action, no precautions until I take steps to actually burn your house down?

Dude, by then it's too late.

Do you think those 65 Democrat Representatives would have written that letter had their constituents not being breathing down their necks?

 

[frazzledgear]

It is a right to bear arms.. Not a privilege that you "retain" only "if" you follow all the rules all the time, or one that you should lose AFTER you have paid your penance to society by spending time in jail.

I do not believe that carrying a weapon is a trait that people should have to get a permit for, because they have to hide the weapon somehow, based on the ever-growing laundry list of legislation that has very much infringed on our right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia means the GOVERNMENT, and in regulating that, THE PEOPLE, which the 2nd amendment states very clearly, have the right to bear arms.

I do not care so much about the "unsafe" aspect of it. I realize this will result in more shootings and very likely a lot more accidental homicides. But it will also DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of overall violent crime, as well as theft that occurs in this country on a daily basis.. Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side. Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

Now, as far as who the 'militia' is...

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

To claim the founders stuck a reference in the 2nd Amendment suggesting that we have the right to bear arms so that GOVERNMENT might better regulate the people in a militia - is ridiculous on its face. COME ON! These were the people who had just used their own grass roots-formed militias to take up arms against their government and justified their right to do that to the entire world in the Declaration of Independence! Do you REALLY think they meant the only militias that were allowed from then on were government controlled ones? You have to remember the founders feared what they were creating, a form of government that had never existed before. They agonized about how to best protect the people from this government knowing full well that all governments, including this one -always had the potential to morph into tyranny and that fact was always forefront in their minds when deciding the exact wording of the Constitution.

The reference to "well regulated militias" in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with government's needs whatsoever. The Bill of Rights is that part of the Constitution that specifically tells government where to get off and leave us alone when it comes to these rights -and is not outlining the ways WE THE PEOPLE may have the "privilege" to serve government. Several founders just wanted a plain declaration of the right of the people to bear arms with no further comment, explanation or justification needed. Those who wanted the inclusion of this phrase won the day -first by writing it up and having it passed while the main opponent to that wording was out of the country - but also by means of a couple of arguments. One being they believed it would stand as a reminder to all future generations of their RIGHT to take up arms and defend themselves even against their own government -and another being an "in your face" statement to government that WE THE PEOPLE always reserve the right to take up arms against it if in OUR judgment, it was no longer carrying out the will of WE THE PEOPLE.

The overriding purpose of the Founders in including this phrase guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." James Madison wrote in an article that was widely reprinted at the time "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." He again affirms the intent of what is meant by "well regulated militia" in the Federalist Papers #46 where he discusses the fears of some of his colleagues that allowing federal government to even have a standing army would significantly impair the ability of the people to form militias and effectively fight the standing forces of government. The founders intended the "well regulated militia" to be those OF THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE as necessary to the security of a free State. Not those of government. The phrase was included as a CONFIRMATION of the right of the people to declare war on their own government, tear it down and start over. Which is why it doesn't say "A militia well regulated by the State is necessary to the security of a free State." They KNEW for a fact that the day could come when "a free State" was not the same thing as "the State". The founders wanted NO future generation to ever forget their right to tear down their government and start over if it became tyrannical and wanted this wording included to serve as that reminder. They also believed that if that inclusion scared the shit out of government - even BETTER.

They were already on guard against government turning to tyranny -it was future generations they were concerned would lower their guard and fall victim once again to tyranny. Power CORRUPTS and those in power are inevitably seduced by it and will then seek to expand and entrench their power, becoming far more concerned with how they can keep that power and further entrench it -even when it means defying the will of the people. The fact we have people in government who have been there for DECADES, who have never had a real job in their life yet are some of the most powerful people in this country as a result - is a bad thing, not a good one. As we see happening with these so-called health care reform bills. 56% of the people oppose ANY of the so-called health care reform bills under consideration by Congress -but that hasn't given them any pause as they make it clear to us all that they will do their utmost to ram it down our throats against our will anyway.

Jefferson wrote that because government is man's creation and not the other way around, it must always be OUR servant and never be allowed to be our master -and that which is no longer the servant requires destruction for the protection of all. James Madison wrote it is the 2nd Amendment that secures all our other rights and that without THIS right, none of the other rights can ever be considered secure to the people. Our founders had no intention of leaving their descendants to the mercy of the government they created.

Madison left a warning for future generations to be wary of those who he PREDICTED would in the future argue it was necessary to strip this right from the people in the name of making society more secure against those who might misuse this right. He wrote that "those willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security, deserve neither". (In spite of those who insist it was either Franklin or Jefferson who wrote this -it was Madison and he was ONLY referring to this false pretext that forfeiting our right to bear arms would provide for a more secure society. Amazingly enough, I have actually seen liberals take this quote entirely out of context and pretend it is a quote that favors GUN CONTROL!)

 

[Zona]

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban

President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.​

At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, “there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban.”


​

And why was President Obama unable to achieve this goal?

Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.

​

So President Obama abandon his objective.

By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. “None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com​

So in other words, he has done nothing towards taking away your guns. Nothing. Yet, the NRA scared the shit out of morons and made them buy up all the ammo.

Dumb asses.

Come on Zona, that's just silly.

If I said "I'm going to burn your house down, Zona." and you believe I have every intention of doing just what I said I was going to do and I have a long history of burning down houses, you are going to take absolutely no action, no precautions until I take steps to actually burn your house down?

Dude, by then it's too late.

Do you think those 65 Democrat Representatives would have written that letter had their constituents not being breathing down their necks?

I "heard" once, Obama hated red lights. I say he will get rid o all the red lights in our Country....The United States of America.

That damn commie.

I also heard Bush was a Christian and we all know Christians dont believe in abortion so he got rid of Roe v wade of course.

(get where I am going with this?)

 

[Missourian]

So in other words, he has done nothing towards taking away your guns. Nothing. Yet, the NRA scared the shit out of morons and made them buy up all the ammo.

Dumb asses.

Come on Zona, that's just silly.

If I said "I'm going to burn your house down, Zona." and you believe I have every intention of doing just what I said I was going to do and I have a long history of burning down houses, you are going to take absolutely no action, no precautions until I take steps to actually burn your house down?

Dude, by then it's too late.

Do you think those 65 Democrat Representatives would have written that letter had their constituents not being breathing down their necks?

I "heard" once, Obama hated red lights. I say he will get rid o all the red lights in our Country....The United States of America.

That damn commie.

I also heard Bush was a Christian and we all know Christians dont believe in abortion so he got rid of Roe v wade of course.

(get where I am going with this?)

Yes I do, it's an excellent analogy.

If Bush worked to outlaw abortion when he was Governor of Texas, and then said "One of my goals as President is to overturn Roe." how many pro-choice supporters would wait until he actually started the process before mounting an objection?

Again, that would simply be silliness.

 

[Ryan]

I think Missourian has put the sword to the idea about crime and firearms. Britain's problem with crime has more to do with a heterogeneous population - like the US - than it has with restrictions on lawful ownership of firearms.

The "rights of an Englishman" apparently no longer includes the most basic human right, the right to self defense. Britons that defend their homes with firearms are feeling the full weight of the law come down on their heads and these fine folks were once "law abiding" but since the laws are restrictive that claim can no longer be made. Austrailia and New Zealand are also expericing similiar conditions. Canada is experiencing an increase in drug related gun crimes. Is Mexico heterogeneous? Has restricting lawfull gun ownership paid dividends in Mexico?

Wrong on self defence, it's still the law in Britain.
Any use of a firearm for self defence will attract interest in the status of that firearm. However that will not negate a claim of self defence.
Australia is not experiencing similar conditions. It has its own conditions. Details of all forms of crime in Australia (reported/recorded) can be found here:

Australian Institute of Criminology - Home - go to the research and check for yourself.

Canada (particularly Toronto) is experiencing an increase in gun crimes, it has to do with the drug trade into the US. So criminals are obtaining firearms unlawfully and using them to perpetrate crimes. That's what armed criminals do.

I have no knowledge of the demographics of Mexico. Nor do I have a clue about their firearms laws. I only know from news reports that the drug trade is a huge problem in Mexico - if the consumer country legalised much of the stuff being consumed then the cartels in Mexico might go under financially and that would be a good thing.

Many Britons were law abiding until legislation banning firearms changed their status and the status of their property. I can recall the case of a gent from Norfolk, Tony Martin that shot two intruders in his where one died. Martin is now serving a life sentence.

I do not usually check links but I did the one you posted, it seemed like a fools errand. In 1996 most private gun ownership was outlawed with a relatively short amnesty period after that period most gun owners are violating the law.

Here is a little from the vast amount of info supporting my point which you claim is "wrong."

Here are the basic rules for self-defense in Britain:

"You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout “Call the Police” rather than “Help.” Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault."

"A homeowner who discovered two robbers in his home held them with a toy gun while he telephoned the police. When the police arrived they arrested the two men, and also the homeowner, who was charged with putting someone in fear with a toy gun. An elderly woman who scared off a gang of youths by firing a cap pistol was charged with the same offense."

Despite my disagreement with you, I am content to leave your perceptions intact.

 

[Ryan]

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

That has to be incorrect....

It is incorrect:



Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 093-1048

Public Act 093-1048

SB2165 Enrolled LRB093 15639 RLC 41247 b

AN ACT concerning criminal law.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding
Section 24-10 as follows:

(720 ILCS 5/24-10 new)

Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms;
affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative
defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits,
regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if
the individual who is charged with the violation used the
firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as
defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.


Effective Date: 11/16/2004

Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the charge.

IOW, even in places that DO prohibit or restrict gun ownership, this statute allows the defense to claim self-defense as a justification for breaking those laws (i.e. someone charged under the prohibitive gun law).


Missourian is an honest guy. I'm sure he'll concede this point.

Not on Piccadilly...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

right to open carry is a States Rights issue. The fed hasn't got any business sticking it's noses in State's business.

 

[Tom Clancy]

As my Signature says by the Great Thomas Jefferson..

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson.


There is a reason why it's in the Constitution.. Like someone said at the beginning of this thread..

The police, God bless them, are reactive.

An armed citizen is proactive.

A citizen with an open carry firearm is a deterrent.

Very well said.

 

[Zona]

Come on Zona, that's just silly.

If I said "I'm going to burn your house down, Zona." and you believe I have every intention of doing just what I said I was going to do and I have a long history of burning down houses, you are going to take absolutely no action, no precautions until I take steps to actually burn your house down?

Dude, by then it's too late.

Do you think those 65 Democrat Representatives would have written that letter had their constituents not being breathing down their necks?

I "heard" once, Obama hated red lights. I say he will get rid o all the red lights in our Country....The United States of America.

That damn commie.

I also heard Bush was a Christian and we all know Christians dont believe in abortion so he got rid of Roe v wade of course.

(get where I am going with this?)

Yes I do, it's an excellent analogy.

If Bush worked to outlaw abortion when he was Governor of Texas, and then said "One of my goals as President is to overturn Roe." how many pro-choice supporters would wait until he actually started the process before mounting an objection?

Again, that would simply be silliness.

So when you qoted Obama from 98...he siad back then when he ran for president, he would take your guns as president?

Silliness indeed.

 

[Missourian]

Let's recap shall we?


Here is your challenge.

I will agree with you if you can show me where he did anything against gun ownership since becoming president.

ANYTHING!

And here is something President Obama did since becoming president AND the reason he was unable to accomplish his objective, reported by MSNBC no less.

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban

President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.​

At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, “there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban.”


​

And why was President Obama unable to achieve this goal?

Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.

​

So President Obama abandon his objective.

By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. “None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com​

Well, that should have been the end of the story. You asked for something Obama did, I posted something Obama did.

Instead of agreeing like you claimed you would, you attempt the lame dodge that attempting to reinstate the AW ban is nothing.

So in other words, he has done nothing towards taking away your guns. Nothing. Yet, the NRA scared the shit out of morons and made them buy up all the ammo.

Dumb asses.

Now, in lieu of nailing you to the wall, I attempt to reason it out with you.

I know this is a waste of time, but what the heck, let's give it a go.

Come on Zona, that's just silly.

If I said "I'm going to burn your house down, Zona." and you believe I have every intention of doing just what I said I was going to do and I have a long history of burning down houses, you are going to take absolutely no action, no precautions until I take steps to actually burn your house down?

Dude, by then it's too late.

Do you think those 65 Democrat Representatives would have written that letter had their constituents not being breathing down their necks?

Next another deflection from you, equally lame. Has no bearing on the argument, as the examples I give are numerous extremely well documented instances of President Obama's anti-firearm positions covering a number of years, while your examples are ridiculously shallow hearsay and innuendo.

I "heard" once, Obama hated red lights. I say he will get rid o all the red lights in our Country....The United States of America.

That damn commie.

I also heard Bush was a Christian and we all know Christians dont believe in abortion so he got rid of Roe v wade of course.

(get where I am going with this?)

I waste yet more time with a reasonable argument. Unfortunately for you, one of your examples IS excellent, if you were arguing my side of the debate.

Yes I do, it's an excellent analogy.

If Bush worked to outlaw abortion when he was Governor of Texas, and then said "One of my goals as President is to overturn Roe." how many pro-choice supporters would wait until he actually started the process before mounting an objection?

Again, that would simply be silliness.

And last but not least, here is your ineffectual attempt to move the goalposts.

So when you quoted Obama from 98...he said back then when he ran for president, he would take your guns as president?

Silliness indeed.

We are not discussing the '98 quote.

We are discussing Obama's attempt to reinstate the AW ban after he became President, per your the initial challenge.

I will agree with you if you can show me where he did anything against gun ownership since becoming president.

ANYTHING!

President Obama attempted to reinstate the 1993 Clinton Assault Weapon Ban...permanently....after he became President. His attempt was thwarted by 65 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representative.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/94179-open-carry-firearms-our-2nd-amendment-right-21.html#post1778166

<Cue Zona's agreement>