There is only one legal way that gun control should be occurring.

[LibertyLemming]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama has been handed another 4 years to accomplish just that.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Obama has been handed another 4 years to accomplish just that.

Obama has nothing to do with amending the Constitution. He literally is not a part of the process at all.

He is going to just bypass it I'm sure and do an Executive Order or Congress will pass another law like the assault weapon ban, most likely the EO.

 

[Duped]

The right to bear arms has already been infringed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

 

[LibertyLemming]

The right to bear arms has already been infringed.

yeah i said that

 

[LibertyLemming]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

Never tried it. I doubt it. There is a lot you can't do these days.

 

[BreezeWood]

Article [II.]
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.

A well regulated Militia ... military weaponry.

to keep and bear Arms ... hunting rifle, Bowie knife, fishing pole -

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

Never tried it. I doubt it. There is a lot you can't do these days.

1919 is ‘these days’?

Schenck v. United States (1919)

 

[LibertyLemming]

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

Never tried it. I doubt it. There is a lot you can't do these days.

1919 is ‘these days’?

Schenck v. United States (1919)

There has been a lot you can't do for a LONG time. I was just saying it continues unabated today and is being increased rapidly.

 

[Flopper]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Any weapon that is at the disposal of the president? That would include surface to air missiles as well as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If this be the case, the founding fathers had no idea what the ramifications were of the amendment.

 

[LibertyLemming]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Any weapon that is at the disposal of the president? That would include surface to air missiles as well as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If this be the case, the founding fathers had no idea what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

I disagree. If we are going to pretend we know what people who are long dead were thinking when they wrote something I'll suggest the following:

The whole idea of the law is that the citizens could if need be form a militia that would be on par with any other fighting force, as it did in the Revolutionary War and as it knew it may need to do should Tyranny take hold in America (from an outside invasion or from our own Government). At the time the law was written the average citizen was on a completely equal playing field with any Emperor or President or military member anywhere because they had access to the exact same weaponry. The best of the best.

This weapon was the Musket. There were flint lock pistols, swords and cannons too and I'm pretty sure no laws prevented citizens from owning any of them. Cannons were expensive, not available in large quantities from the local store, and had to be served by a crew and drawn by horses. (Discounting things like small wall guns or swivel guns) Individual use of a cannon as your primary weapon would have been silly. Artillery without a protecting force is pretty much useless.

Gentlemen of means could afford to buy cannon as part of raising their own volunteer artillery companies, or as protection for fortified settlements out in the frontier. Powder and shot were available in bulk quantities, so if someone wanted to go blow places to kingdom-come, they could have. This wasn’t high on most folks agenda, though. It is interesting how these people could advocate such strong liberty for mankind while owning slaves lol.

The point is that they wrote the law with the intention of allowing their citizens to be on an equal playing field. I'm aware the weapons are far more dangerous these days; however, I think the example of the cannon would apply to many of the weapons that are used in warfare today.

 

[OKTexas]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

That has what to do with owning a machine.

 

[Clementine]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

More people get hurt rushing out of building during a fire than by the fire. If there really is a fire, of course everyone will be screaming 'fire' and running. Someone always gets trampled. To cause that sort of chaos over a joke would be creating danger for no reason and should be illegal. Has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with public safety. If there wasn't a law against it, then some assholes would keep doing it, thinking it's funny, and they'd probably get the crap beat out of them by an angry mob. Yea, better to just ban that kind of stupidity.

 

[JustTheFacts]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

I would argue that you absolutely should have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Now now just like with a gun if someone is injured by your actions you should be held responsible. notice the difference. In 1 instance yelling fire is likely to cause harm. whereas merely possessing a gun is unlikely to harm anyone.

 

[LibertyLemming]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?

More people get hurt rushing out of building during a fire than by the fire. If there really is a fire, of course everyone will be screaming 'fire' and running. Someone always gets trampled. To cause that sort of chaos over a joke would be creating danger for no reason and should be illegal. Has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with public safety.

Selling people on the "public safety" has lost us more liberties than I can count. It has also put us trillions in debt, a dollar that may crash, and has killed millions of people, many innocent.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

You should be allowed to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President?

Okay................let's start off small..........................why would you need a 50 cal. machine gun? How's about a shoulder fired surface to air missile? What value could either of those items be to you?

Based on many of your posts, I'm guessing not much, because I seriously doubt you've ever seen any kind of military time.

 

[LibertyLemming]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

You should be allowed to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President?

Okay................let's start off small..........................why would you need a 50 cal. machine gun? How's about a shoulder fired surface to air missile? What value could either of those items be to you?

Based on many of your posts, I'm guessing not much, because I seriously doubt you've ever seen any kind of military time.

Please quit following me around dude or I'll just ignore you. If we are gonna ban everything except what people need we aren't gonna have jack shit. Like this forum. Like the internet. Equally weaponry creates more liberty. The most prosperous time for freedom in recent times was when Kings, Presidents, and average people controlled the same weapons.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.


In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.

You should be allowed to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President?

Okay................let's start off small..........................why would you need a 50 cal. machine gun? How's about a shoulder fired surface to air missile? What value could either of those items be to you?

Based on many of your posts, I'm guessing not much, because I seriously doubt you've ever seen any kind of military time.

Please quit following me around dude or I'll just ignore you. If we are gonna ban everything except what people need we aren't gonna have jack shit. Like this forum. Like the internet. Equally weaponry creates more liberty. The most prosperous time for freedom in recent times was when Kings, Presidents, and average people controlled the same weapons.

Go ahead pussy.............put me on ignore. Doesn't bother me a bit.

And who the fuck do you think you are to tell me where I can and can't post? Are you a mod?

Equal weapons create more liberty? Tell that to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them have "equal weapons" yet there is more chaos and anarchy there than you can shake a stick at.

By the way Lobotomized Lemming...................how much of your brain did they pull out, all of it?

 

[Londoner]

When Bush decided to rape the Constitution with the Patriot Act, Domestic Surveillance, and the sweeping federal powers of the department of Homeland Security, we didn't hear a fucking peep.

Now, we have meek president talking about increasing background checks so that fewer psychopaths don't get assault rifles with high capacity magazines.

And the Rightwing voter is freaking out.

Here is what makes this whole thing tragic.

When Bush was destroying the Constitution, rightwing talk radio didn't just suppress the truth - they supported him. And, as a result, the folks on this message board had no idea what Bush was doing. Same thing with Reagan's support of Hussein or the Mujahideen. These things were and are on the public record but the Republican voter doesn't know it because none of their pundits discuss it.

To make matters worse, they have been conditioned to believe that any news source outside the FOX/Limbaugh orbit is the "lame stream media" and cannot be trusted. So even if they wanted to investigate the relationship between (say) Hussein and Bin Laden, or if they wanted to study Reagan's spending in relation to Carter's, they are emotionally and intellectually incapable of breaking free. And because so many of them lack much college education - they never learned the theoretical difference between say Marx and Keynes; meaning: they are easy prey to the Republican Media Universe. This is why they only seem to discuss issues that arise from their trusted sources. You never hear them raise an issue that hasn't been floated by the machine. This is why they still have no idea about Bush and the Constitution. I guess they could research it, but they have been convinced that every single news source outside of their narrow collection of conservative bullhorns are lying. [I understand why GOP leadership has these people in ideological lockdown. Because if you're trying to morph Hussein into Bin Laden, than you cannot have people leaving your media universe. You have to make them mistrust everything, including science and universities]

God help us. These people vote.