I've Been Lied To, and Decieved By a Politician ... Big Surprise

[MikeBjerum]

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 

[runstowin]

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.

[alfsauve]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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 

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Sponsor]

[504Devil]

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. 

[tombogan03884]

 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.

[Rob10ring]

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.

[alfsauve]

"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.

[Rob10ring]

"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.