0
   

Obama on Guns and Concealed Carry

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 01:39 pm
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns." --Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,228 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 02:26 pm
@cjhsa,
your point?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 02:32 pm
I believe that the HELLER decision
is fraught with implication, thru out its length,
that the USSC will extend its breadth to personal carry and to the states.


For instance:
" We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment
right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
I don 't think that sounds like it means only to
all Americans who are at home in their kitchens or bathrooms.


" the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments
that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
existence at the time of the founding."
Does that sound like it will be applied only inside peoples' houses,
if thay live on federal territory ? I don t think so.


The USSC goes on to say:
" Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons
in case of confrontation.

This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments,
codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment
implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and
declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”





" By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had
become fundamental for English subjects.
See Malcolm 122"134. Blackstone, whose works, we have
said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the
founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999),
cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as
one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. "

The USSC has already held that " fundamental rights " curtail the power of the STATES.


There is much, much more thru out the HELLER decision indicating
what the USSC intends to do, as to the freedom protected by 2A

I 'll cite more, if u want it.





David
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 02:53 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

your point?



My point is that he's a gun grabbing nutbag who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights nor the SCOTUS decision on Heller. He doesn't even know what a semi-automatic weapon is, nor does he know that ZERO crimes have been committed with full auto weapons since the days of Capone....
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 02:56 pm
@cjhsa,
and my point of course is that you are waaaaaaaay easy to rile
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 03:14 pm
@cjhsa,
Isn't your quote from before the Heller decision came out?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 03:43 pm
Here are a couple of beauties from the USSC in HELLER:

" As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central
to the Second Amendment right
.
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms”
that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose."
To MY mind, that does not suggest
that when an American citizen leaves his house
to walk in the street, or if he leaves a federal enclave,
he then loses his inherent right of self defense.
The USSC did not say THAT.

The USSC goes on to quote with approval:
" See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616"617 (1840)
(“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to
a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne
as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence,
would be clearly unconstitutional
”)."
[all emphasis added by David]
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 03:57 pm
This is of concern qua constitutional rights to possess
so-called "assult weapons":

" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service"M-16 rifles and the like"may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached
from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service
, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home
to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

[all emphasis added by David]

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 04:07 pm
@cjhsa,


"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 04:25 pm
SAy concelaed carry to CEEJ and David and they get all woody.
I hope Obamas able to affect some of the above, like the gunshow loopholes, and the limits to purchases per month. Unless youre a dealer, mass purchases of guns are INSANE. Semi autos that can be easily converted to full auto ougta be banned also, theyre only do-it-yourself killing kits.

Guys like David want to get all freedom and patriotic sounding until theres some mass attack on innocents. (Of course DAvid wants to make sure that everyone is armed)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 11:10 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:

(Of course DAvid wants to make sure that everyone is armed)

The victims NEED to be armed AT LEAST as well as the PREDATORS.





David
0 Replies
 
thegalacticemperor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 11:46 pm
Cjhsa and David, you seem scared and insecure in the face of sensible gun control. What are you really going to do with your guns if you are allowed to amass them without limitation? Stockpile them for your imaginary armies? Use them to kill the minorities hiding in the shadows who obviously want to harm you? Defend yourselves against the very frightening Barack Obama and his stormtroopers who plan to steal your money and redistribute it to the poor? Give us all a break. Go get on meds. Help yourselves to overcome your paranoia and senseless hang ups. Please.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 01:36 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

your point?



My point is that he's a gun grabbing nutbag who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights nor the SCOTUS decision on Heller. He doesn't even know what a semi-automatic weapon is, nor does he know that ZERO crimes have been committed with full auto weapons since the days of Capone....


You may want to do a little more investigation into this. You are wrong. You may want to check crime in California for a start. AK47's involved.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 02:27 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

your point?



My point is that he's a gun grabbing nutbag who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights nor the SCOTUS decision on Heller. He doesn't even know what a semi-automatic weapon is, nor does he know that ZERO crimes have been committed with full auto weapons since the days of Capone....


You may want to do a little more investigation into this. You are wrong. You may want to check crime in California for a start. AK47's involved.
AK's come in both semi and fully automatic, but your point is still valid. The cowardly racist gun nut is also a liar.

Last year



Some more good ole boys
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 06:44 am
@Intrepid,
Were they full auto? I can buy AK's too... lots of them at my local gun dealers.... Full auto is legal only for Level 3 FFL's, and none of them have ever committed a crime. So, even if a full auto is used in a crime, someone already committed a crime by converting the weapon. Follow? Isn't that "sensible"?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 06:47 am
@OCCOM BILL,
You obviously don't get it and aren't worth my time.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 09:39 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Semi autos that can be easily converted to full auto ougta be banned


Name these semi-automatics that can easily be converted to full auto.

I'll make it easy for you - name just one.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 09:34 pm
@H2O MAN,
How about AK47 and AR15 for two?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 05:40 am
@Intrepid,


You have converted these to full auto and it was easy?
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 05:51 am
@H2O MAN,
Did I say that I have done it? I said they are two that can be converted. If you don't know that.....educate yourself.
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama on Guns and Concealed Carry
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 01:59:25