Why Does Barack Obama Want To Ban All Our Guns?

. . . (2) the intention of the amendment likely at least included an effort to protect the people against excessive government control, since that's what the other amendments in the Bill of Rights seem designed to do.

Setanta, your argument is without merit.
It is nothing more than a favorite talking point used by left wing anti gun liberals without testicles.

H2O_MAN wrote:

Setanta, your argument is without merit.
It is nothing more than a favorite talking point used by left wing anti gun liberals without testicles.

I'm quite sure Set is going to sit right down and examine his entire epistemology due to your scathing and devastating critique of his argument, a suicide watch has been invoked for the next 48 hours but with help and support we think Set might survive. i do believe H2O man that you brilliant use of the socratic method should be added to the Platonic Dialogues of Socrates as an example of supreme logic in rhetoric.

Did somebody leave the screen door open? I think i can hear a fly buzzing around.

I don't know and I don't care. The fact that I make one assertion doesn't mean that I'm obligated to take a position on any other issue. What I am asserting is that (1) the Founders clearly meant for the right to own guns to be protected,

Setanta wrote:

Did somebody leave the screen door open? I think i can hear a fly buzzing around.

Flies drawn to your shrunken festering nads ??

oralloy wrote:

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.)

Jesus, you always try to pull off **** like this. Absolutely nowhere in the constitution is any putative right of self-defense mentioned, in a context of keeping and bearing arms, nor in any other context.

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

oralloy wrote:

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

The 10 round clip I posted a link to earlier was for an Enfeild 2A.

So, is a standard military rifle covered or not by the 2nd now?

oralloy wrote:

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.

Then what the hell have you been doing talking about the banning of .30-.30 ammo for if it isn't constitutionally protected?

Brandon9000 wrote:

. . . (2) the intention of the amendment likely at least included an effort to protect the people against excessive government control, since that's what the other amendments in the Bill of Rights seem designed to do.

The second amendment speaks of participation in a well-regulated militia, while the others of the first ten amendments concern themselves mostly with the protection of the rights of individuals. The ninth amendment provides that rights not enumerated are not necessarily denied the people, and the tenth amendment deals with the rights of the several states and of the people collectively. There is no mention of, nor even any referential allusion to excessive government control in any part of the first ten amendments. This is however (the protection against government tyranny dodge) a favorite stalking horse of rightwingnut gun freaks.

Your argument is without merit. Perhaps you could defend your position by referring specifically to which of the ten amendments which constitute the bill of rights are designed to protect us from excessive government control.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't know and I don't care. The fact that I make one assertion doesn't mean that I'm obligated to take a position on any other issue. What I am asserting is that (1) the Founders clearly meant for the right to own guns to be protected,

This is based on what? Your interpretation of the meaning of the word "arms' to only mean guns? Why would they use the word "arms" if they only meant guns?

Or is your interpretation that they meant the standard "arms" that a militia would have carried at the time it was written so that is why you think it applies only to guns?

An absolute minimum requirement of debate is to be able to accurately state your opponents position, so pay attention now. I said that (1) it was the clear intention of the 2nd Amendment to permit at least guns, (2) there is no mention that only weapons for hunting are being described, (3) they didn't get very specific about larger weapons because most larger weapons hadn't been invented yet, and (4) I am under no obligatation whatever to clarify the issue of more powerful arms to be able to assert the above three points.

Brandon9000 wrote:

An absolute minimum requirement of debate is to be able to accurately state your opponents position, so pay attention now. I said that (1) it was the clear intention of the 2nd Amendment to permit at least guns, (2) there is no mention that only weapons for hunting are being described, (3) they didn't get very specific about larger weapons because most larger weapons hadn't been invented yet, and (4) I am under no obligatation whatever to clarify the issue of more powerful arms to be able to assert the above three points.

Okay, just because even you didn't seem to have read your own post:




And then, I suggest that you read a bit about the history of weapons
(But I admit, today the idea of the Mysorean Rocket artillery and Congreve Rockets looks a bit .... historic.)

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. At the time of its writing, arms pretty much just meant guns. As to whether the Founders would have wanted larger weapons to be allowed is hard to say, because the issue didn't much exist when the document was written, but it is clear that they wanted possession of guns to be a protected right. The Bill of Rights in general limits the power of government to control citizens, and this amendment is likely in the same spirit.

Maybe I was referring to all of my posts collectively, ...

Like most of the board liberals, you'll do anything to distract from discussion of the underlying topic.

If you disagree with me, why not actually address the subject I'm making assertions about?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Maybe I was referring to all of my posts collectively, ...

I was just pointing at something which you mentioned in your response as being an "absolute minimum requirement of debate".
And you were clearly referring to that post - at least, it looks like such on my monitor.

Obviously, you don't like to follow your own ideas.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Like most of the board liberals, you'll do anything to distract from discussion of the underlying topic.

If you disagree with me, why not actually address the subject I'm making assertions about?

I'm no Liberal, neither the way you Americans name them nor like it's done generally.

But I did name two larger weapons from long before and around 1800 ...

The fact that we don't have the right to have it doesn't mean I can't protest if I think it is being banned.

I don't have the right to eat pizza, but I'd be up in arms if the government went and banned pizza.

And then, I suggest that you read a bit about the history of weapons
(But I admit, today the idea of the Mysorean Rocket artillery and Congreve Rockets looks a bit .... historic.)