Why Does Barack Obama Want To Ban All Our Guns?

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

Interesting that you feel a magazine of 10 rounds or less isn't a standard magazine.

"This is a standard capacity magazine. It holds 10 rounds"

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

Interesting that you feel a magazine of 10 rounds or less isn't a standard magazine.

"This is a standard capacity magazine. It holds 10 rounds"

1986 -- but you can still own post-86 guns on a Form 3 if you are a "Special Occupational Taxpayer".

(If the government set up militias for us to join, we'd be able to have them on a Form 10..... )

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

Interesting that you feel a magazine of 10 rounds or less isn't a standard magazine.

"This is a standard capacity magazine. It holds 10 rounds"

As if that means that 10 rounds is standard for every weapon.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

Interesting that you feel a magazine of 10 rounds or less isn't a standard magazine.

"This is a standard capacity magazine. It holds 10 rounds"

As if that means that 10 rounds is standard for every weapon.

I never said more than 10 rounds was not standard for some weapons.

You said that 10 rounds or less was NOT a standard magazine. It is your statement that was incorrect.

The statement that Obama wants a ban on standard magazine capacities is misleading and not completely factual.

He does not support a ban on standard magazines of 10 rounds or less.

Of course if those commie nazis hadn't provided deer with bullet proof vests you wouldn't need armor piercing rounds to take them out.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

Interesting that you feel a magazine of 10 rounds or less isn't a standard magazine.

"This is a standard capacity magazine. It holds 10 rounds"

As if that means that 10 rounds is standard for every weapon.

I never said more than 10 rounds was not standard for some weapons.

You said that 10 rounds or less was NOT a standard magazine. It is your statement that was incorrect.

Nope. Nothing incorrect about my statement.

parados wrote:

The statement that Obama wants a ban on standard magazine capacities is misleading and not completely factual.

Nope. That statement is 100% factual.

parados wrote:

He does not support a ban on standard magazines of 10 rounds or less.

That does nothing for the guns that have larger magazines.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

Yep. That is true as well. He wants to limit us all to 10 rounds.

I guess 10 rounds or less is not a standard capacity magazine

Correct.

Interesting that you feel a magazine of 10 rounds or less isn't a standard magazine.

"This is a standard capacity magazine. It holds 10 rounds"

As if that means that 10 rounds is standard for every weapon.

I never said more than 10 rounds was not standard for some weapons.

You said that 10 rounds or less was NOT a standard magazine. It is your statement that was incorrect.

Nope. Nothing incorrect about my statement.

parados wrote:

The statement that Obama wants a ban on standard magazine capacities is misleading and not completely factual.

Nope. That statement is 100% factual.

parados wrote:

He does not support a ban on standard magazines of 10 rounds or less.

That does nothing for the guns that have larger magazines.

It does make the statement that "Obama wants to ban all guns" false.

The purpose of our constitutional gun rights is . . . to have guns for use in militias and for self-defense. (emphasis added, editing has not changed essential meaning, and clarifies the allegation about constitutional authority.)

He certainly wants to ban any guns that might be covered by our Constitutional gun rights.

The purpose of our constitutional gun rights is not "sporting use". The point is to have guns for use in militias and for self-defense.

Oh? really? So then you think the Bush adminsistration is also in a conspiracy to ban arms allowed under the constitution.

Either arms means ALL military arms as you are claiming or it means only those arms used in a militia when the constitution was passed if you want to be a constitutional originalist. Your tortured reading to make it seem that Obama wants to ban guns allowed because they are military in nature is completely indefensible unless and until you want to defend my right to keep a nuclear weapon in my basement.l

parados wrote:

Oh? really? So then you think the Bush adminsistration is also in a conspiracy to ban arms allowed under the constitution.

Either arms means ALL military arms as you are claiming or it means only those arms used in a militia when the constitution was passed if you want to be a constitutional originalist. Your tortured reading to make it seem that Obama wants to ban guns allowed because they are military in nature is completely indefensible unless and until you want to defend my right to keep a nuclear weapon in my basement.l

This sort of weapon didn't exist when the Constitution was written, and, therefore, there is no clarification about them. There is no basis whatever for suggesting that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect Americans' right to hunt. It says that the government may not infringe upon the peoples' right to posess weapons, and one must assume that that's what it means. The Bill of Rights in general limits the power of government to regulate citizens, and this amendment is likely in the same spirit.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Oh? really? So then you think the Bush adminsistration is also in a conspiracy to ban arms allowed under the constitution.

Either arms means ALL military arms as you are claiming or it means only those arms used in a militia when the constitution was passed if you want to be a constitutional originalist. Your tortured reading to make it seem that Obama wants to ban guns allowed because they are military in nature is completely indefensible unless and until you want to defend my right to keep a nuclear weapon in my basement.l

This sort of weapon didn't exist when the Constitution was written, and, therefore, there is no clarification about them. There is no basis whatever for suggesting that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect Americans' right to hunt. It says that the government may not infringe upon the peoples' right to posess weapons, and one must assume that that's what it means. The Bill of Rights in general limits the power of government to regulate citizens, and this amendment is likely in the same spirit.

So does the 2nd amendment protect my right to have a nuclear weapon or not?

You can't claim "arms" only means guns like the founders had while making allowances for any guns they didn't have. "Arms" is not restricted to mean only weapons that shoot a projectile propelled by gunpowder. It certainly didn't have that meaning at the time of founders.