Obama's plan for gun control...

[BlindBoo]

obama needed to make it look like American sold guns were being sent to mexico so he could get support for more gun control. But he got busted.

American made guns are going to Mexico that is a fact

The same as American drug users are funding the Mexican drug cartels

Yes American sold guns made their way to Mexico by the help of obama's department of justice.

Yesiree, those cartels wouldn't have any guns if it weren't the US DoJ huh?

NOT. Just a drop in the bucket.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

American made guns are going to Mexico that is a fact

The same as American drug users are funding the Mexican drug cartels

Yes American sold guns made their way to Mexico by the help of obama's department of justice.

Yesiree, those cartels wouldn't have any guns if it weren't the US DoJ huh?

NOT. Just a drop in the bucket.

Well it was obama's justice department doing it and it did cost a border agent his life. That is if you hold life as a drop in the bucket.

 

[Syphon]

Yawn. Post 141.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212154-obamas-plan-for-gun-control-10.html#post4935762


You'll need to first address mine, which you have, as of yet, utterly failed to do.
I'm -more- than interested in seeing your counter, and making the case for the compelling state interest.

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens.

Intent is irrelevant.
Background checks are form of pripor restraint, which is always an infringement.
The right shall not be infringed, unless you can show compelling interest and least restrctive means.


Non sequitur, and does nothing to reduce the soundness of my positions.


Yes. Prior restraint, just like I said, above.


Says the intllectual pre-pubescent that doesnt know what "prior restraint' is or undertsands how/why it violates the Constitution.

you have a right to vote, but now the GOP wants to instill voter ID. this is an infringement on out rights by your definition of infringement

Sigh.
The state has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone who wants to cast a ballot is who they claim to be, and the ID check is the least restrictive means to that end - to NOT verify the identity of the prospective voter violates the sanctity of the voting process, undermines the basic principles of democracy, and reduces, if not destroys, the voting rights of everyone involved.

Hint: the above is an example of what you must do to to argue a 'compelling interest' regarding licensing/registration/background checks.

now answer my questions.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you've countered my arguments or conceded that you cannot do so. Please try again.

sigh..... the right shows once again they are retarded.

you still cant explain why it violates the 2nd amendment. the 2nd amendment doesnt list prior restraint as a requirement. try again igor.

the state has a compelling interest to check ID because an ID because it is the least restrictive mean to that end?????? why not ask for fingerprint ID or a DNA sample? there is nothing in the constitution that states voters must provide ID in order to vote. your argument is invalid as the constitution does not require it. now you are violating my right again on my right to vote by limiting my access to voting. try again igor....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens.

Intent is irrelevant.
Background checks are form of pripor restraint, which is always an infringement.
The right shall not be infringed, unless you can show compelling interest and least restrctive means.


Non sequitur, and does nothing to reduce the soundness of my positions.


Yes. Prior restraint, just like I said, above.


Says the intllectual pre-pubescent that doesnt know what "prior restraint' is or undertsands how/why it violates the Constitution.


Sigh.
The state has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone who wants to cast a ballot is who they claim to be, and the ID check is the least restrictive means to that end - to NOT verify the identity of the prospective voter violates the sanctity of the voting process, undermines the basic principles of democracy, and reduces, if not destroys, the voting rights of everyone involved.

Hint: the above is an example of what you must do to to argue a 'compelling interest' regarding licensing/registration/background checks.

now answer my questions.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you've countered my arguments or conceded that you cannot do so. Please try again.

sigh..... the right shows once again they are retarded.

That would be true in your case.

 

[Juanita]

He will never circumvent our 2nd Amendment right.

He has been able to bypass Congress and constitutional procedure before. He may get away with signing some sort of international agreement and claim that it trumps the Constitution. He'll have a helluva time getting my guns.

....I don't know what he can do to limit ammunition, but most guns won't work without some. The Marxist approach would be to nationalize the manufacture of ammunition in the US and restrict the importation of foreign made ammo.

I guarantee you this: Obama's goal is to control you and your family.

I have been hearing this rumor your years.....nobody is going to take our guns....we have something called the constitution and the second amendment.......fear mongers never get tired of their spin.... Juanita

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He will never circumvent our 2nd Amendment right.

He has been able to bypass Congress and constitutional procedure before. He may get away with signing some sort of international agreement and claim that it trumps the Constitution. He'll have a helluva time getting my guns.

....I don't know what he can do to limit ammunition, but most guns won't work without some. The Marxist approach would be to nationalize the manufacture of ammunition in the US and restrict the importation of foreign made ammo.

I guarantee you this: Obama's goal is to control you and your family.

I have been hearing this rumor your years.....nobody is going to take our guns....we have something called the constitution and the second amendment.......fear mongers never get tired of their spin.... Juanita

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to obama, if it does why did he sign the NDAA? Extend and broaden the patriot act and assassinate an American citizen without due process?

 

[Syphon]

He has been able to bypass Congress and constitutional procedure before. He may get away with signing some sort of international agreement and claim that it trumps the Constitution. He'll have a helluva time getting my guns.

....I don't know what he can do to limit ammunition, but most guns won't work without some. The Marxist approach would be to nationalize the manufacture of ammunition in the US and restrict the importation of foreign made ammo.

I guarantee you this: Obama's goal is to control you and your family.

I have been hearing this rumor your years.....nobody is going to take our guns....we have something called the constitution and the second amendment.......fear mongers never get tired of their spin.... Juanita

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to obama, if it does why did he sign the NDAA? Extend and broaden the patriot act and assassinate an American citizen without due process?

why did bush start 2 wars without having proof of WMD's? why did bush draft the patriot act? what did bush approve waterboarding? apparently the constitution means nothing to bush and the GOP either

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have been hearing this rumor your years.....nobody is going to take our guns....we have something called the constitution and the second amendment.......fear mongers never get tired of their spin.... Juanita

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to obama, if it does why did he sign the NDAA? Extend and broaden the patriot act and assassinate an American citizen without due process?

why did bush start 2 wars without having proof of WMD's? why did bush draft the patriot act? what did bush approve waterboarding? apparently the constitution means nothing to bush and the GOP either

I thought you had me on ignore

why did bush start 2 wars without having proof of WMD's?

Bush was given approval by congress exactly how does this come to be a constitutional violation?

why did bush draft the patriot act?

You think I give Bush a pass on that?

apparently the constitution means nothing to bush and the GOP either

Again how did Bush going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan violate the Constitution?

 

[The T]

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to obama, if it does why did he sign the NDAA? Extend and broaden the patriot act and assassinate an American citizen without due process?

why did bush start 2 wars without having proof of WMD's? why did bush draft the patriot act? what did bush approve waterboarding? apparently the constitution means nothing to bush and the GOP either

I thought you had me on ignore

Bush was given approval by congress exactly how does this come to be a constitutional violation?

why did bush draft the patriot act?

You think I give Bush a pass on that?

apparently the constitution means nothing to bush and the GOP either

Again how did Bush going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan violate the Constitution?

And with Astan being the 'favoured' war on the left...but permission by both sides of the aisle given per the Constitution none the less...

 

[Liberty]

Bush sucked (although I'd totally pound a few shots of whiskey with him)...also we haven't had a lawful war since Dec. 8, 1941.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Global gun control law pushed by Clinton - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com

You’ve got to be kidding.

 

[The T]

Bush sucked (although I'd totally pound a few shots of whiskey with him)...also we haven't had a lawful war since Dec. 8, 1941.

Which begs the question? IS there in the Constitution that describes the language the Congress and/or the POTUS must use to "Declare war"...or does it merely state that the Congress must approve such actions?

 

[GoneBezerk]

I can see Obamination try this but he would have a hard time enforcing it.

He can't use the US military to enforce it, actually Congress would impeach him for TREASON and the US military and FBI would arrest him and his thugs.

 

[Liberty]

Bush sucked (although I'd totally pound a few shots of whiskey with him)...also we haven't had a lawful war since Dec. 8, 1941.

Which begs the question? IS there in the Constitution that describes the language the Congress and/or the POTUS must use to "Declare war"...or does it merely state that the Congress must approve such actions?

The way I understood it was congress declares the war, and then the president assumes control over military to swiftly accomplish the mission set forth by the generals and joint chiefs. Defense Dept then manages it and keeps the President up to speed. After the war, everything goes back to normal. I don't believe it to be constitutional for the President to assume "Command and Chief" status while not in a declared state of war. My evidence is mostly founding documents, federalist papers, etc. Too lazy to post specifics atm though but there is writing on it.

 

[Full-Auto]

He will never circumvent our 2nd Amendment right.

He has been able to bypass Congress and constitutional procedure before. He may get away with signing some sort of international agreement and claim that it trumps the Constitution. He'll have a helluva time getting my guns.

....I don't know what he can do to limit ammunition, but most guns won't work without some. The Marxist approach would be to nationalize the manufacture of ammunition in the US and restrict the importation of foreign made ammo.

I guarantee you this: Obama's goal is to control you and your family.

I have been hearing this rumor your years.....nobody is going to take our guns....we have something called the constitution and the second amendment.......fear mongers never get tired of their spin.... Juanita

Actually I can cite several cases of legal guns being confiscated.

But more to the point the latest attempt was further infringement.

 

[The T]

Bush sucked (although I'd totally pound a few shots of whiskey with him)...also we haven't had a lawful war since Dec. 8, 1941.

Which begs the question? IS there in the Constitution that describes the language the Congress and/or the POTUS must use to "Declare war"...or does it merely state that the Congress must approve such actions?

The way I understood it was congress declares the war, and then the president assumes control over military to swiftly accomplish the mission set forth by the generals and joint chiefs. Defense Dept then manages it and keeps the President up to speed. After the war, everything goes back to normal. I don't believe it to be constitutional for the President to assume "Command and Chief" status while not in a declared state of war. My evidence is mostly founding documents, federalist papers, etc. Too lazy to post specifics atm though but there is writing on it.

Where in the Constitution does it specificallt state the launguage to be used to declare war?

Now I agree with you on the conventional wisdom regarding the carrying out of a war...get in, kick ass, get it done...WIN, end story.

 

[Liberty]

Which begs the question? IS there in the Constitution that describes the language the Congress and/or the POTUS must use to "Declare war"...or does it merely state that the Congress must approve such actions?

The way I understood it was congress declares the war, and then the president assumes control over military to swiftly accomplish the mission set forth by the generals and joint chiefs. Defense Dept then manages it and keeps the President up to speed. After the war, everything goes back to normal. I don't believe it to be constitutional for the President to assume "Command and Chief" status while not in a declared state of war. My evidence is mostly founding documents, federalist papers, etc. Too lazy to post specifics atm though but there is writing on it.

Where in the Constitution does it specificallt state the launguage to be used to declare war?

Now I agree with you on the conventional wisdom regarding the carrying out of a war...get in, kick ass, get it done...WIN, end story.

its in the enumerated powers of the congress, article 1 section 8

congress SHALL have the power to...

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

I am pretty sure a declaration of war is meant through a voting process of some kind just like any other piece of legislation.

 

[The T]

The way I understood it was congress declares the war, and then the president assumes control over military to swiftly accomplish the mission set forth by the generals and joint chiefs. Defense Dept then manages it and keeps the President up to speed. After the war, everything goes back to normal. I don't believe it to be constitutional for the President to assume "Command and Chief" status while not in a declared state of war. My evidence is mostly founding documents, federalist papers, etc. Too lazy to post specifics atm though but there is writing on it.

Where in the Constitution does it specificallt state the launguage to be used to declare war?

Now I agree with you on the conventional wisdom regarding the carrying out of a war...get in, kick ass, get it done...WIN, end story.

its in the enumerated powers of the congress, article 1 section 8

congress SHALL have the power to...

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

I am pretty sure a declaration of war is meant through a voting process of some kind just like any other piece of legislation.

Where does it infactically State the language to be used when a sitting POTUS requests to commit?

It doesn't.

Now I don't like going to war having been in the military...nor do I like it now having been out awhile...but was willing to GO seeing as I was in...
(Personal level)...

Now that out of the way?

It's a matter of symantics...the Constitution does state that the congress must agree to 'declare war'...but does it state that those words MUST be there?

 

[buddy_boy8403]

Who wants to pay for registering a gun... the gov only wants to know so they know how many guns are out there in case of marshal law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He has been able to bypass Congress and constitutional procedure before. He may get away with signing some sort of international agreement and claim that it trumps the Constitution. He'll have a helluva time getting my guns.

....I don't know what he can do to limit ammunition, but most guns won't work without some. The Marxist approach would be to nationalize the manufacture of ammunition in the US and restrict the importation of foreign made ammo.

I guarantee you this: Obama's goal is to control you and your family.

I have been hearing this rumor your years.....nobody is going to take our guns....we have something called the constitution and the second amendment.......fear mongers never get tired of their spin.... Juanita

Actually I can cite several cases of legal guns being confiscated.

But more to the point the latest attempt was further infringement.

Yes