• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama will take your guns away

Obama will take our guns away

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
obvious Child said:
You really think they'd overturn at the SCOTUS 200+ years of precedent?
Click to expand...

200 years of precedent? you mean the HELLER DECISION which was passed a few years ago? You have to remember that the individual right was not actually recognized until then
 
I love it when right wing abuses of the system are used to support right wing attacks on POTENTIAL abuse of the system by others.

I'd say those most willing to beat the 'they is after our 'guns', man the email ramparts!' drum are lobbyists and lawyers of the NRA.

In this day of hyper partisanship and vicious primary campaigns I don't see enough politicians willing to support so sensitive an issue until after the Tea Party dies.

When it comes to Supreme Court Justices the President has to get his nominee past a rather reluctant,(I am being nice), Republican block in the Senate.

Next the Justice's don't always do the political wishes of the President who nominated them. The current Chief Justice comes to mind on Obamacare, the Chief was appointed by BushII.

There is money to be made in What Ifin' this. Fear to be maintained, Party Faithful to be given a bone to gnaw on...

"please continue to donate to the NRA as lobbyists have kids in private school and vacation homes to pay for..."
 
notquiteright said:
I love it when right wing abuses of the system are used to support right wing attacks on POTENTIAL abuse of the system by others.

I'd say those most willing to beat the 'they is after our 'guns', man the email ramparts!' drum are lobbyists and lawyers of the NRA.

In this day of hyper partisanship and vicious primary campaigns I don't see enough politicians willing to support so sensitive an issue until after the Tea Party dies.

When it comes to Supreme Court Justices the President has to get his nominee past a rather reluctant,(I am being nice), Republican block in the Senate.

Next the Justice's don't always do the political wishes of the President who nominated them. The current Chief Justice comes to mind on Obamacare, the Chief was appointed by BushII.

There is money to be made in What Ifin' this. Fear to be maintained, Party Faithful to be given a bone to gnaw on...

"please continue to donate to the NRA as lobbyists have kids in private school and vacation homes to pay for..."
Click to expand...

The NRA is not a pro second amendment group, they lobby for CCW permits (and other "infringemets") because they (their members) get money from them. For example, the Texas CCW permit law requires that one first complete a "NRA" CCW course (for about $100) to "qualify" to spend $140 more to simply apply for a state issued CCW permit.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you labor under the mistake that there has been two hundred years? actually, most of the court of appeals starting in the WWI area had ignored an individual right because they supported limitations on "Papist" immigrants
Click to expand...

There have been rulings on the second amendment since at least 1820. That would be...about 200 years.
 
How exactly is Obama going to remove my biceps?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The NRA is not a pro second amendment group, they lobby for CCW permits (and other "infringemets") because they (their members) get money from them. For example, the Texas CCW permit law requires that one first complete a "NRA" CCW course (for about $100) to "qualify" to spend $140 more to simply apply for a state issued CCW permit.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with extreme views is it fails to see fellow travelers unless they are as extreme as hardcore members. The NRA is pro 2nd amendment, but is run by a cabal of political hacks, lobbyists and lawyers... none of which most 'conservatives' care for unless of course they are doing 'conservative' bidding. ;)

I can see your disagreement with fees for CCWs and the like. However many less extreme citizens see the need for at least a minimum of training, and it is the very least you can do and still call it training, before sanctifying concealed carry. Training cost money, from rental of the class space to the handouts, presentations, time of the trainers, range safety officers, the range itself...

Some see it as an infringement, some assurance the continuation of the Right to Bear Arms is successful and safe for all concerned.
 
yes!!!!! all marxists want citizens to be unarmed it how they can control people so obviously obama wants to take away peoples guns
 
notquiteright said:
Part of the problem with extreme views is it fails to see fellow travelers unless they are as extreme as hardcore members. The NRA is pro 2nd amendment, but is run by a cabal of political hacks, lobbyists and lawyers... none of which most 'conservatives' care for unless of course they are doing 'conservative' bidding. ;)

I can see your disagreement with fees for CCWs and the like. However many less extreme citizens see the need for at least a minimum of training, and it is the very least you can do and still call it training, before sanctifying concealed carry. Training cost money, from rental of the class space to the handouts, presentations, time of the trainers, range safety officers, the range itself...

Some see it as an infringement, some assurance the continuation of the Right to Bear Arms is successful and safe for all concerned.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, which is sound, then it would seem that the training (preferably public education) should precede the legal purchase/posession of firearms, rather than attempt to allow nearly all to legally purchase/posess firearms but be subjected to later arrest/firearm confiscation while actually carrying/using them. I still see a distinct difference between having to "qualify" for a right to keep/bear arms, yet not having to "qualify" for a right to vote or to have an attorney present during police questioning/trial. Once the state/city may set "standards" (and require fees) or "conditions" for a citizen to get/keep their Constitutional rights then they become mere privileges, rather than rights.
 
I DO NOT believe he will. don't know if he wants to. Now...whether he COULD or not...

Tyranny is NEVER the singular act of an individual. Do the people that were decrying Bush's assault on their civil liberties REALLY believe Bush was responsible for the Patriot Act, wireless wiretaps, etc? SHOULD it occur that ANY president decide they would attempt such an undertaking they would HAVE to have the Supreme Court on their side...not congress (though a few fully supportive allies in Congress would help). A president could issue executive orders backed by a court ruling. Now. whether or not they would have the third cog in place would be telling. The third cog would be the enforcement arm. SOMEONE would have to be willing to TAKE those arms...by force where necessary.

No...I don't think Obama WILL. Could he? Depends on several factors.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Using your logic, which is sound, then it would seem that the training (preferably public education) should precede the legal purchase/posession of firearms, rather than attempt to allow nearly all to legally purchase/posess firearms but be subjected to later arrest/firearm confiscation while actually carrying/using them. I still see a distinct difference between having to "qualify" for a right to keep/bear arms, yet not having to "qualify" for a right to vote or to have an attorney present during police questioning/trial. Once the state/city may set "standards" (and require fees) or "conditions" for a citizen to get/keep their Constitutional rights then they become mere privileges, rather than rights.
Click to expand...

To carry my logic to an EXTREME would be as you say. Again the difference between extreme and mainstream is on parade. Democracy thrives where reasoned men (and women) agree on practical paths forward.

I don't agree on 'fingerprinting' every weapon sold to the general public. I don't agree with keeping records on weapon purchases, do on back round checks done by businesses, to include anyone selling at a gun show. You selling to me as a strictly private sale- no.

I have no problem with a private range requiring some sort of qualification to use their ranges. A homeowner asking for some sort of pedigree before a room mate brings a weapon into the house.

And I believe the gubmint as the general population's representative should require some sort of certification before the CCW uses 'our' public spaces- remember public spaces belong to the group not an individual- and your constitutional rights end at my law abiding nose.

A bullet doesn't make that distinction.

I don't believe in punishing before the fact, I don't see requiring some training as punishment, merely helping make the program a success.

Punishing would be not allowing any Concealed Carry because someone MIGHT shoot an bystander rather than the bad guy. The training program is a compromise.
 
It would be a very good thing if your President took away your silly popguns, but I fear that the Merchants of Death are almost as powerful as AIPAC amongst your various masters.
 
ObamaIsAMarxist said:
yes!!!!! all marxists want citizens to be unarmed it how they can control people so obviously obama wants to take away peoples guns
Click to expand...
It's clear that your are already being controled. So exactly how often do you use your gun to keep yourself from being controled? And, if it get worse, i.e. you suffer more control, how do you plan to use your guns?
 
Obama may want to ban certain guns such as any CW's but he would need COTUS to get a bill passed and then he would have to sign it.

With the NRA in firm control of the RNP and many conservative Dems that is an almost impossible task. The only way this would happen is a national outrage or tragedy of a monumental scale. Then he MIGHT be able to ride the wave and get something passed.

As I have said before, It is a logistical impossibility to "BAN" or confiscated weapons in peoples homes. Even if we stopped producing all guns today and ammunition and not counting the black market in guns, there would be plenty of guns around in homes and elsewhere for a very long time. (example - My 20 gauge was over 20 years old when I sold it and my 22 was a hell of alot older).

My brother has my grandfathers 12 gauge which he made in 1921 and it still works fine
 
I WOULD dearly love to see him demonstrate a successful model for gun control against criminals and people that get guns through illegal means. Hell...he wouldn't even have to create new laws to do that...just work with the existing governments and enforce existing law. Heck...he could start in good ol sweet home....Chicago.
 
Penderyn said:
It would be a very good thing if your President took away your silly popguns, but I fear that the Merchants of Death are almost as powerful as AIPAC amongst your various masters.
Click to expand...

Aesop's Fox alert
 
I think its safe to say that there is little indication that Obama really cares about the second amendment one way or another.
 
Turtledude said:
Not directly

but what Obama can and will do is to appoint more judges like Sotomayor who do not believe there is an individual right of citizens to own guns. that means if Heller comes up again and Kennedy has been replaced by another anti gun justice, our gun rights are in jeopardy Furthermore there are many restrictions that many of us believe are unconstitutional that are in place but of dubious validity such as the Hughes Amendment which banned the legal registration and ownership of post May 19, 1986 automatic weapons Another couple anti gun justices will mean that many restrictions less draconian than outright bans of most guns might be sustained

Furthermore the executive orders Obama can impose can cause massive problems. Clinton banned the importation of chinese made weapons and ammo. Many of the best brands of low cost high quality ammo come from Mexico (Aguila) Serbia (Privi Prtizan) Russia (Brown bear, wolf) etc and Obama can prevent that through executive order which would drive up the cost of shooting substantially.
Click to expand...

Perhaps for the first time, Turtledude, you and I are in substantial agreement on something. It would be very foolish indeed for the citizens of the U.S. to tolerate gun control. In general, almost every time governments have tried to control the access citizens have to weapons, it hasn't worked out so well for the common folk. The one exception I can think of is the effort to control nuclear/chemical/biological weapons--I suspect generally it wouldn't be good for most average people to own nuclear warheads.
 
I'm not overly worried in the short term... I think most Democrat politicians have learned that more gun control is NOT popular and hurts them in elections.

But as Turtle mentioned, the notion of Obama appointing judges to SCOTUS that are anti-gun causes me some concerns for longer-term issues.
 
Penderyn said:
It would be a very good thing if your President took away your silly popguns, but I fear that the Merchants of Death are almost as powerful as AIPAC amongst your various masters.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of American culture and people is as vast as the Grand Canyon. It is voters who have let the politicians know that more gun control is unwelcome, not any imagined gun-merchant lobby.

But you're only here to bait and flame, so whatever....
 
Cilogy said:
Sorry for the length:

I might have said this before recently, but I think strict adherence to the Constitution is overrated. I know that sounds horrible, but I just think times were different in the 18th century to the point that laws that might have made perfect sense then don't make sense now. The "right to bear arms" doesn't really have the same the implications it used to.

Consider several things:
1. the type of arms available then compared to now (you couldn't exactly massacre a theater full of people with a flintlock musket)
2. the US was a smaller, less diverse, and a more vulnerable country back then
3. guns were not as widely produced as they are now
4. the amount of massacres and shootings that occur these days compared to back then

All those things carry a lot of weight in this debate. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out ban on all guns, and at the end of the day it's about the person holding the gun rather than the gun itself. Plus, I can see why people like guns and I definitely agree with the need for some sort of defense at home, for defense against tyranny, or for when the apocalypse hits. However, why do we realistically need military grade equipment for civilian use? Assault weapons? Stuff that is intended more for insurgency rather than personal defense? Why allow the craziest folks access to this stuff? We can either increase control on more powerful guns or take steps to improve education and stuff to prevent this from happening in the first place, but only one of those things is realistic in the short-term. Only one of those things can really prevent shootings and pointless deaths now.

So, here is where I disagree with Obama (I think), because I'm not entirely sure where he would draw the line on gun control. You'd think Obama's admin wants all guns banned all the time (which I disagree with), but it's tough to interpret that considering his actions as president. Going back to what you said, I'm not entirely sure where the SCOTUS would draw the line either. So as frustrating as the POTUS' stance on guns has been for pro-gun folks, it's been similarly frustrating to people like me to. I just don't know what to think about this sometimes, but it's worth at least doing something rather than doing nothing.
Click to expand...

since Civilian police officers are issued military grade "assault weapons" (when you use that term you pretty much demonstrate to those who are well versed in arms issues that your knowledge is limited because that term is meaningless) because various governmental units have determined that such weapons are ideal for SELF DEFENSE BY THOSE WHO HAVE NO GREATER RIGHT TO KILL THAN OTHER CIVILIANS that alone justifies us OTHER CIVILIANS to be able to own the same weapons.

saying such weapons are MORE POWERFUL again demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding as well.

doing something for the sake of doing something has cost society millions of lives.

wisdom is understanding some problems cause solutions that cost more than the problems they are designed to solve
 
Redress said:
There have been rulings on the second amendment since at least 1820. That would be...about 200 years.
Click to expand...

but sadly for you it was not until Heller that the USSC determined it to be an individual right. indeed, the main point in one of the Dissent (JPS) was that the COURT OF APPEALS precedent was that there was NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT RECOGNIZED>

sorry but you are wrong here
 
ashurbanipal said:
Perhaps for the first time, Turtledude, you and I are in substantial agreement on something. It would be very foolish indeed for the citizens of the U.S. to tolerate gun control. In general, almost every time governments have tried to control the access citizens have to weapons, it hasn't worked out so well for the common folk. The one exception I can think of is the effort to control nuclear/chemical/biological weapons--I suspect generally it wouldn't be good for most average people to own nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...

I don't think nukes are recognized by the second amendment because they are not individual or even squad sized weapons. secondly the commerce clause and other federal interests are clearly involved because the use of such weapons has interstate and international ramifications

so IMHO nukes or WMDs are neither guaranteed by the second or something that congress was not delegated power to control. The international and interstate nature clearly empowers congressional jurisdiction
 
TurtleDude said:
since Civilian police officers are issued military grade "assault weapons" (when you use that term you pretty much demonstrate to those who are well versed in arms issues that your knowledge is limited because that term is meaningless)
Click to expand...
I never claimed to be an expert on guns, but the term "assault weapons" is used commonly enough for you to know what I meant.

because various governmental units have determined that such weapons are ideal for SELF DEFENSE BY THOSE WHO HAVE NO GREATER RIGHT TO KILL THAN OTHER CIVILIANS that alone justifies us OTHER CIVILIANS to be able to own the same weapons.
Click to expand...
If less people had access to such weapons it would be unnecessary.

saying such weapons are MORE POWERFUL again demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding as well.
Click to expand...
So something like a 9mm Walther is equally as powerful and can do as much damage within a certain amount of time as an M4? Would that Aurora, CO shooter have done as much harm if he was using a pistol as opposed to the rifle he did use?

doing something for the sake of doing something has cost society millions of lives.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but do we just have no control at all? We just sit quietly while more and more crazy folks have access to weapons that can deal a lot of damage to a lot of people?

wisdom is understanding some problems cause solutions that cost more than the problems they are designed to solve
Click to expand...
This is, again, why I said an all out ban on all guns is unnecessary and unrealistic. That's where I think I disagree with the Obama admin because of what they might do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom