The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on February 01, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
-
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4365 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4365)
I,m sure many if not most of you get this, but here is my rant:
A few short months ago we were being told that Mr. Obama did not want our guns, all he wanted was "commonsense controls." After the election we were called every name in the book including idiots because we were buying guns and ammo. It has now been eleven days since "black Tuesday" (pun intended since it is now ok to point out race in politics). What do we have to show for it.
Start with the above link, and expand from there. I've asked it after many elections, and I will ask it again:
Can we use legal action to remove and incarcerate a politician that openly lied and deceived to get in a position of power?*
*Don't answer ... it is a rhetorical rant >:(
-
A few short months ago we were being told that Mr. Obama did not want our guns, all he wanted was "commonsense controls.
I hate to be stick in the mud, but on this issue I agree with Obama, commonsense controls are desperately needed, therefore I propose the following:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Those are all of the commonsense controls we need.
-
First, and let's be clear about this, our President didn't lie. He told you all along he was in favor of commonsense control on guns. That would be HIS sense of what's common, not ours, but the way.
Secondly, imy "common sense" gun law would be this.
"The inalienable right of all people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by federal, state or local government!"
No if's, and's, or but's.
Of course, that would necessitate overturning about 30,000 statues, laws and rules........but I'm willing to make that sacrifice.
-
A few short months ago we were being told that Mr. Obama did not want our guns, all he wanted was "commonsense controls.
I hate to be stick in the mud, but on this issue I agree with Obama, commonsense controls are desperately needed, therefore I propose the following:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Those are all of the commonsense controls we need.
Under those conditions I am willing to become an Obama supporter ;)
-
A few short months ago we were being told that Mr. Obama did not want our guns, all he wanted was "commonsense controls.
I hate to be stick in the mud, but on this issue I agree with Obama, commonsense controls are desperately needed, therefore I propose the following:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Those are all of the commonsense controls we need.
It's to vague and confusing your way, I like Alf's better.
-
What needs to happen first off is to let all elected liers, I mean politicians, from the local to the top that The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is our Line in the sand and they dare not cross it. Politicians should be affraid of We the People, but they have lost that fear, becuase to many of us are willing to let someone make all the decisions in life for us. WE THE PEOPLE have been asleep at the wheel. Every real American better get out there and practice the Second Amendment as it should be. Buy at least one military style rifle and ammo for it, preferably one for every person 16 to 60 in the home, and let us become a nation of rifleman as we once were. Then get our asses off the couch and take the familiy to a range a teach them how to use your new rifles- or take part in one of the Appleseed Project range weekends and put the true intent of what the founders seen as the safeguard against government abuses--a Militia made up of all the people.
-
Many of us have been saying the same thing since the 60's only to be dismissed as "extremists". The problem is not the system. It's the voters. When the system was set up people wanted to work and improve them selves. Now they just want sit on their butts watching "American Idol" and wait for the welfare check. Can you blame a politician for giving what they want ? Can you blame the socialists for thinking we are ripe for picking ? Most of the sheep could be moved to the old Soviet Union and never even notice except that their favorite video narcotic was not interrupted by political ads. In fact most would find the lack of choice a relief until it came to something REALLY important, like no Charmin, you have to use plain old rough toilet paper.
-
First, and let's be clear about this, our President didn't lie. He told you all along he was in favor of commonsense control on guns. That would be HIS sense of what's common, not ours, but the way.
Secondly, imy "common sense" gun law would be this.
"The inalienable right of all people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by federal, state or local government!"
No if's, and's, or but's.
Of course, that would necessitate overturning about 30,000 statues, laws and rules........but I'm willing to make that sacrifice.
A little markup:
"The inalienable right of all people to keep and bear arms in their homes or in public, shall not be infringed by federal, state or local government!"
In California, we might not want the word "inalienable" in there. The undocumented visitors like to quote that as a right to be here and take whatever they like.
-
"The inalienable right of all people to keep and bear arms
in their homes or in public, shall not be infringed by federal, state or local government!"
Sorry, 'markup' rejected. That would only open the door as to what the words "homes" and "in public" mean. Would they mean apartments? Hotels? Dorm room? And does "in public" mean at work, or just on the street? Does it include cars? What about "in private" but not at "home"? It weakens the statement.
-
"The inalienable right of all people to keep and bear arms in their homes or in public, shall not be infringed by federal, state or local government!"
Sorry, 'markup' rejected. That would only open the door as to what the words "homes" and "in public" mean. Would they mean apartments? Hotels? Dorm room? And does "in public" mean at work, or just on the street? Does it include cars? What about "in private" but not at "home"? It weakens the statement.
Well, we need something that states that the 2nd isn't restricted to keeping guns at home. That is how it has been interpreted in many jurisdictions and even left wide open for attack in the opinions submitted wit the Heller decision.
-
How about this
Screw around with our gun rights and we will drag you out and hang you."
Think that would make it the "untouchable Amendment for a couple decades ? (Till they could get rope banned )
-
The socialists may have picked a bad time to make a move. I think their timing is going to stink. I don't think they hit the economy here at the bottom or at the bottom moving up. Looks like we're going to continue a slide.
My thoughts....a stimulus package putting $$$'s in the hands of people will make 'em all happy for a bit...then the force of a falterling world economy will talke away the glee in their hearts as things get worse. Could go either way....a turnaround or hyperinflation and a deepening recession. I don't see how we can get a turnaround before mid-fall...but then if I knew what I was talking about when it came to financials I wouldn't be writing this looking at the clock to see if it was time to go to work.
On the issue of gun control....don't make waves until the populace is ready to follow. Stay off the radar screen and educate everyone you meet....a simple word if oft remembered down the road. Until the people can recognize the true situation, we are all just errant crazies and will be dismissed. Be politically active now so that the 2nd Ammendment supporters are always in the back of the mind of the politician.
-
The problem Fuz has been with the legislatures and judges who are willing to restrict rights in order to "control" the people. They justify it as "end justifies the means". They think, it's okay to restrict rights or to bend the constitution if it's for the "common good." (Their definition, of course, as to what's good and what's common.)
No matter how you word it if these two governmental bodies don't uphold the constitution then we're screwed. Oh wait, we are already.
I vote to keep it short and simple. Then you can provide all the "legislative intent" to back it up you want.
-
If the SC will not touch a case asking BO to supply proof of US citizenship you know DAMN well they will not think about a little white lie....besides there is no such thing as an honest politician.
JMHO
Richard
-
If the SC will not touch a case asking BO to supply proof of US citizenship
I always thought this point was a bit retarded. His mother was a citizen when he was born. He has a passport and he had to prove it for the Senate. Many of the people who want him to "Prove" his citizenship would not accept anything he could produce anyway. The SCOTUS would not touch this as it is a waste of time. (My mom was a foreign national when I was born and I am an American) besides there is no
such thing as an honest politician.
Sure there is...you can find them burning in Hell.
-
I always thought this point was a bit retarded. His mother was a citizen when he was born. He has a passport and he had to prove it for the Senate. Many of the people who want him to "Prove" his citizenship would not accept anything he could produce anyway. The SCOTUS would not touch this as it is a waste of time. (My mom was a foreign national when I was born and I am an American) besides there is no
Thanos,
I don't mean to sidetrack this thread, however I used to feel like you ... Until I got sick of him ignoring and tap dancing around the subject. In the spirit of transparency and being above reproach all he needs to do is present a few simple documents. He refuses! He puts on an attitude of supremacy and a look that says "how dare you question." If he has nothing to hide why doesn't he make these documents public?
Back on topic ...
My purpose for starting this thread was to get everyone of us to start reminding our elected officials that they are headed down a road we said they would takes us and they said we were nuts. Don't let them forget that they said we would not go here. I don't care if words like "common sense" are subjective as opposed to objective. If they can define them so can we.
Let's hammer them with the words of the Second Amendment and the writings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson at every turn. And I know this will put TAB over the edge, but WHEN NECESSARY let's get in their face like gum on the sole of a tennis shoe! I for one use the explanation to my Representatives that in order of importance guns are down a ways - God is always #1, my family and their needs are always #2, and guns come in after that. However, I also feel, and let other know, that if you can do this to a clearly written piece like the Second Amendment what can they do to everything else in our lives.
Texans still cry "Remember the Alamo." I don't every want to stand on street corners crying "Remember the Second Amendment."