Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban

[Redworm]

Because sadly there will never be enough candidates who support everything that is right. In politics everything is a compromise. You are your own perfect candidate, but even if you run, you probably won't represent what I think is right. As a result, I'm going to vote to protect the rights that I feel are the most important. If I manage to protect more than that then good for me.

True but here's the kicker. I can always hide my guns if they take away the 2nd. I can't hide anything if they take away the 1st, 4th, or 5th. I do feel that the RKBA is important but I also realize that it's utterly useless without the others.

In your scenario none. Of course you presume that I have a desire to recreate the alamo in my front yard. Which I dont. As far as the newspapers, thats really disingenuous in todays society. The media is so widespread and technology so pervasive that the govt can't keep much of anything under wraps anymore.

Not necessarily you but some do. And even if you don't the point is that without those other rights the only thing your guns can do for you is recreate the Alamo.

You'd think that the government can't keep things under wraps but then you have jackasses like Ted Stevens pushing for censorship of the internet.

And this proves my earlier point. There is nothing in the PA that allows this to happen. Anyone that says so is either ignorant or lying. If our country comes to this then the relevance and validity of laws that were passed died long ago.

Regardless however, above anything else I still want the right to defend myself. I value that more than any other right in the constitution. And while as a single person I might not have much of an impact, several thousand of like minded people with a goal and the means to achieve it can make a huge difference. The viet cong understood this and so does al quaeda.

Maybe not in the Patriot Act but in many other things. War on Drugs? NSA wiretaps? Jose Padilla?

I also want the right to defend myself but the great thing about the RKBA is that it's the only one of the BoR that refers to a tangible object. Those several thousand or - hopefully - million of us would be able to keep our guns to ourselves regardless of whatever law some screwy politicians enact. I'm not giving up mine regardless of the law. Period.

I'll hide them and blatantly lie right to their faces. "On the bottom of Lake Michigan, Agent Smith. Yessir, tragic boating accident."

But I can't hide anything if they're allowed to search my house without a warrant. And if no one's able to hear my rant about how the feds tried to take my Kimber then who's gonna be there to back me up?

 

[Redworm]

Now here's the crucial question. Were these peoples rights violated because of the PA, or because the government simply abused their power? More importantly did the system fix itself as it was designed to do.

Because the PA has been passed and because the govt abuses its power does not mean that every abuse is because of the PA. The govt violated peoples rights before the PA and will continue to do so after. This doesn't place every bad act on the shoulder of the PA

The government abused its power and was able to get away with it because of the Patriot Act.

Certainly not every bad act can be attributed to the PA but it's still a scary piece of legislation if you read through it. Especially considering no one read it. It's one thing if we don't bother reading it...but the people that signed it into law overnight without even a cursory glance?

Makes me sad.

 

[Fremmer]

Anyone care to comment about the love of gun control by the Democratic leaders in Congress? Hillbama supporters, anyone else?!?

Anyone? Anyone? C'mon, Hillbama-ites, here's your chance!

 

[STAGE 2]

True but here's the kicker. I can always hide my guns if they take away the 2nd. I can't hide anything if they take away the 1st, 4th, or 5th. I do feel that the RKBA is important but I also realize that it's utterly useless without the others.

Your logic is backwards. If you have no second, then you means of ensuring the others. Theres a specific reason why the right to bear arms is only superceded by the freedoms of speech, religion, thought and alike. Thats because the framers understood that without the means to defend these rights, the rights themselves are useless.

As draconian as it sounds, being armed allows a person to prevent the government from violating their 4th and 5th amendment rights in so much as they are not totally defenseless. Obviously this isn't a long term solution or a permanent one, however it is one of many reasons why the second amendment is only slightly lesser of importance than the first.

Maybe not in the Patriot Act but in many other things. War on Drugs? NSA wiretaps? Jose Padilla?

Ah yes the wiretaps which were thrown out of court last week and Mr. Padilla who recently finished a tour of the mid east's greatest hits, a bag full of cash and a cell phone full of al queada contact numbers. Lots of abuses there

I also want the right to defend myself but the great thing about the RKBA is that it's the only one of the BoR that refers to a tangible object. Those several thousand or - hopefully - million of us would be able to keep our guns to ourselves regardless of whatever law some screwy politicians enact. I'm not giving up mine regardless of the law. Period.

I'll hide them and blatantly lie right to their faces. "On the bottom of Lake Michigan, Agent Smith. Yessir, tragic boating accident."

But I can't hide anything if they're allowed to search my house without a warrant. And if no one's able to hear my rant about how the feds tried to take my Kimber then who's gonna be there to back me up?

Again your logic is backwards. Right now you've just given the government enough PC to search your house with a valid warrant. Probable cause isn't a terribly huge burden to meet, and with the pervasive information that can be legally obtained by the government, they could find gun owners very very easily.

The minute the populace is unarmed, then everything else will fall like clockwork. If I was to accept your logic and we lost our second amendment rights, guess what is the only thing preventing us from losing all the rest... the word of the government that they won't take it away.

 

[gyp_c2]

hmmm...

Probable cause isn't a terribly huge burden to meet, and with the pervasive information that can be legally obtained by the government, they could find gun owners very very easily.

...yes...oh wait, How long has probable cause been available as an excuse to basically do whatever you want?
I seem to remember once upon a time that you had to get the warrant before fishing around in ones' personal life...
nah, musta' beena dream...

 

[Redworm]

Your logic is backwards. If you have no second, then you means of ensuring the others. Theres a specific reason why the right to bear arms is only superceded by the freedoms of speech, religion, thought and alike. Thats because the framers understood that without the means to defend these rights, the rights themselves are useless.

Sure you do. Just because there's no second amendment doesn't mean your guns disappear. Those you can hide, you can store, you can lie about. You can't hide your freedom of speech or right to fair trial.

I do agree that without the means to defend the other rights they are useless but those other rights are something to defend. If one is willing to give them up voluntarily to keep their guns then the right to bear arms is useless. At that point you're just arguing for the right to make loud noises.

Ah yes the wiretaps which were thrown out of court last week and Mr. Padilla who recently finished a tour of the mid east's greatest hits, a bag full of cash and a cell phone full of al queada contact numbers. Lots of abuses there

Just because the abuses regarding those wiretaps were discovered and shot down doesn't mean they didn't happen. And Padilla was still held for years without charges. I don't give a frak if he was tickling Osama's tummy while praising allah and making IEDs with his feet, NO ONE should ever be held without charges. No one. Ever. Period.

That flies right in the face of the very foundations of freedom and liberty, the very things that are supposed to define this country and make it great.

Again your logic is backwards. Right now you've just given the government enough PC to search your house with a valid warrant. Probable cause isn't a terribly huge burden to meet, and with the pervasive information that can be legally obtained by the government, they could find gun owners very very easily.

The minute the populace is unarmed, then everything else will fall like clockwork. If I was to accept your logic and we lost our second amendment rights, guess what is the only thing preventing us from losing all the rest... the word of the government that they won't take it away.

PC or not my guns can still remain hidden. But at least they have to get a warrant, at least I can still get a fair trial, at least I can still report the government abuses across the globe and protest freely.

You seem to think that the minute the 2nd is taken away that the guns will just magically disappear. Not gonna happen. I won't turn mine in regardless of the law. Again, the guns will stay regardless of what the books say but free speech and free religion and right to trial don't exist without those written laws to protect them. Guns are the only tangible right, that's what makes them different.

And once more, if you're going to freely give away all your other rights then the second amendment becomes utterly meaningless. Then again some people believe guns are solely for shooting thugs and deer. The rest of us realize that the second amendment is about protecting against tyranny. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Justme]

The govt as currently constructed with the police and paramilitary law enforcement at their disposal don't give a rat's ass whether you have bolt action vs semi auto weapons. At this point in history we can not expect to beat the govt in any sort of armed resistance. The have A-10s for God's sake!!!

Politicians say things like banning semi autos because it makes people feel better and might get them some votes. It makes people feel better in part because a lot of gun toting yahoos act like mall ninjas and quite frankly seem all to ready to resort to some sort of deadly force.

It's all just a game of rhetoric and persuasion. That is why several people on this forum harp on about word choice and attitude. Every amendment is defended using rhetoric, influencing public opinion is the second most important thing any gun owner can do to ensure he/she is allowed to remain a gun owner.

 

[Manedwolf]

At this point in history we can not expect to beat the govt in any sort of armed resistance. The have A-10s for God's sake!!!

And that's worked so well in Iraq?

You are failing to grasp the basic mathematics. If a government ever became that repressive a regime, any number of tens of thousands out of a hundred million or more houses...100,000,000, that's a Big Number...could and would have a scoped hunting rifle poking out of a window.

Unless you destroy every single standing structure in existence, there's no way the United States could ever be controlled against a populace with small arms. Every hunting rifle becomes a sniper rifle when you change what the target is.

And that's our final safeguard against dictatorship.

 

[Fremmer]

You seem to think that the minute the 2nd is taken away that the guns will just magically disappear. Not gonna happen. I won't turn mine in regardless of the law.

Not all of your guns, just all of the semi-automatic guns. Remember, hunters don't need semi-automatic guns, and we're just talking about Hillbama's "sensible gun safety" legislation. And if you don't turn them in, Hillbama will have you prosecuted. Thanks, Hillbama!

 

[Redworm]

Not all of your guns, just all of the semi-automatic guns. Remember, hunters don't need semi-automatic guns, and we're just talking about Hillbama's "sensible gun safety" legislation. And if you don't turn them in, Hillbama will have you prosecuted. Thanks, Hillbama!

They still won't disappear. I'll still physically have them and the only reason I can't turn them in is because they were lost or stolen.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

I'll cast my vote for neither (D) nor (R), and if my itty-bitty vote causes the Republicans to lose the election, then it's the fault of the Republicans alone for failing to come up with an electable product.

+1

As far as I'm concerned they all sleep in the same bed and until a fresh canidate wins NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE. And those who keep voting for the same old time after time have absolutely no right to complain when the same old is delivered time after time.

Shotgun

 

[STAGE 2]

Sure you do. Just because there's no second amendment doesn't mean your guns disappear. Those you can hide, you can store, you can lie about. You can't hide your freedom of speech or right to fair trial.

I do agree that without the means to defend the other rights they are useless but those other rights are something to defend. If one is willing to give them up voluntarily to keep their guns then the right to bear arms is useless. At that point you're just arguing for the right to make loud noises.

I never said the other rights were irrelevant or not worth defending. What I said was that if we lose the 2nd then we lose the rest because all we have protecting them is the hope they are not taken away.

As far as hiding your guns, it wont work. If you have no right to own a gun then you have no need for ammo. All of those wonderful forms you filled out when you purchased your handgun are all the info the police need to knock on your door and snoop around. The government can make if to where no matter how sneaky you are they can make it so your efforts are in vain.

Finally, while I believe every US citizen should not have their rights violated and Padilla should have had his day in court, if this is the type of person that falls under the hammer, I;m not going to lose much sleep over it.

 

[Manedwolf]

All of those wonderful forms you filled out when you purchased your handgun are all the info the police need to knock on your door and snoop around.

You mean the guns that were purchased with cash in private sales, no form, face to face with a local seller?

You may not live in a free state, but I do.

 

[Fremmer]

Hah. You lost your guns, huh? No problem. Hillbama will endorse new "sensible gun safety" legislation for ammunition and ammo components, too. That means no more sales of ammo without identification (and maybe a license, too), and certainly no more reloading (including powder, primers, cases, etc.).

Not one response about the love of gun control legislation by the Democrats who are running for President? Or perhaps it is just easier to talk about other Constitutional rights and avoid that whole gun control issue, yes?

 

[Redworm]

I never said the other rights were irrelevant or not worth defending. What I said was that if we lose the 2nd then we lose the rest because all we have protecting them is the hope they are not taken away.

And I still think you're wrong. There are many other nations with far stricter gun control than we have yet they are not living in tyranny. The British still have free speech, the Japanese still have trial by jury.

And if we lose the 2nd we lose the second, we do not lose our guns unless we willingly turn them in.

As far as hiding your guns, it wont work. If you have no right to own a gun then you have no need for ammo. All of those wonderful forms you filled out when you purchased your handgun are all the info the police need to knock on your door and snoop around. The government can make if to where no matter how sneaky you are they can make it so your efforts are in vain.

If it gets to the point that the police are allowed to get warrants just because I filled out a 4473 then the fit has truly hit the shan. You'll excuse me if I laugh at the idea that the government will ever have the manpower to search tens of millions of households for guns that folks refuse to turn in.

And it still doesn't refute my point. If that happens I still have a right to trial and I can still report my experiences to the press. I won't sacrifice my freedom of speech or habeas corpus or my right to control my own body. Nor will I sacrifice my right to own a gun which is why I would never vote for Obama. But it's also why I would never vote for McCain, Benito Giuliani, Thompson, Romney or every other neocon on the stage. Choosing one of those douchebags over a Democrat because he pretends he'll be nicer to your freedoms is just plain foolish. Our guns are equally as threatened under Hillary or Giuliani, under Obama or Thompson, under McCain or Kucinich.

Finally, while I believe every US citizen should not have their rights violated and Padilla should have had his day in court, if this is the type of person that falls under the hammer, I;m not going to lose much sleep over it.

Why exactly do you care about the RKBA again?