Solved

2nd Amendment

Posted on 2012-03-19
22
14 Views
Last Modified: 2012-03-23
Is Obama a threat to the Constitutional right to bear arms?

A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/feb/10/nra-official-obama-wants-outlaw-guns-2nd-term/
0
Comment
Question by:carsRST
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • +3
22 Comments
 
LVL 10

Accepted Solution

by:
pclinuxguru earned 10 total points
Comment Utility
Well he has been padding the whole gov't with anti-gun people and allowing BATF to give guns to felons and terrorists to try and make more anti-gun laws.

So yea and if you were paying attention recently he did say he would circumvent the U.S Constitution to get what he wants so why not add some more Obama loving justices to the Supreme Court so they can "evaluate" what the second amendment means...
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:CompProbSolv
CompProbSolv earned 10 total points
Comment Utility
It seems to me that similar claims were made when he was elected the first time.  There were news reports of a large spike in sales of guns and ammunition which was presumed to be caused by fear of Obama restricting such things.  I find it interesting that the lack of him imposing such restrictions is now taken as a sign of his "conspiracy".  I'm not a fan of arguments where regardless of data, the argument can be supported.

While Obama is clearly not a pro-gun person, I'm not aware of any specifics that he has done to circumvent the 2nd amendment.  The article you cited bases the claim on who he has appointed to the Supreme Court and who the author thinks he will in the future.  This is a pretty common argument made about most Presidents.  That is, they will "stack" the Court to further a specific agenda.

I would argue that Presidents will nominate individuals for the Court based on similarity with their own beliefs just as we vote for candidates with such similarity.  I believe we tend to call that "judgement".

The citation also states "erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights".  Last time I checked, the President has no such power.  The Amendment would have to be repealed by another amendment, which would have to be passed by the voters of the states.  I consider that highly unlikely to succeed.

I would also dispute the statement "there is no greater freedom than to own a firearm".  Different people have different preferences to their freedoms; I don't consider it absolute at all.
0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:pclinuxguru
Comment Utility
Well it's easier to change things without telling the people what it is your changing. A little search reveals:
"WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

I would compare what you said to driving a car towards a brick wall and suggesting you may bust through and be alive because there is no information that it is thicker than what it really is...
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:beetos
beetos earned 10 total points
Comment Utility
More of the fictional Obama candidate conservatives rally against.

Not only has he not "come for your guns", he's actually relaxed gun control laws.  You can now have a firearm in DC.   You can carry a gun in a federal park.  

It's just another of the right's version of reality, where they protest in a federal park against Obama's "crackdown" on gun rights;  they carried guns as part of the protest, only because of a recent law signed by Obama allowing them to do so.
0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:pclinuxguru
Comment Utility
Not fictional... the Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Obama supported the ban... fortunatly the others are still there... until Obama replaces them.

By the way the Supreme Court ruled on that.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
Comment Utility
>>Not only has he not "come for your guns"

OBAMA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL:
WE MUST 'BRAINWASH' PEOPLE AGAINST GUNS



>>You can now have a firearm in DC.

The loosening of gun restrictions comes despite Obama.   It comes thanks to lawsuits (District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago).  To attribute to the community organizer would be equivalent to attributing an increase in domestic oil production to him.  



>>More of the fictional Obama candidate conservatives rally against.

 In 1996, Kagan (Obama supreme court justice) apparently tied the NRA to the KKK
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
"If we get one more like those three, the Second Amendment is finished," he said. "It'll be the end of our freedom forever."

"there is no greater freedom than to own a firearm"

WTF is wrong with the NRA?

When did Freedom suddenly get defined as the right to be able to kill by moving your finger a little? Why do you need to have a gun in your hand to be free?

Since I don't own a gun am I not a free man?

This is about the stupidest argument that the conservatives make. The only people that should have guns are those that require it in their profession: police, military, armored truck drivers, security, etc.

Joe Blow doesn't need to have a gun. You want to hunt? That's what rifles are for. Pistols are to kill other people?

I'm fine with a ban on guns and stricter gun laws. The 2nd amendment is one of those 200 year old amendments that is horribly outdated, if it was ever relevant anyway.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
Comment Utility
>>The 2nd amendment is one of those 200 year old amendments that is horribly outdated,

Then get it changed the legal way, not by appointing a bunch of crazy, anti-Constitutional judges.



>>When did Freedom suddenly get defined as the right to be able to kill by moving your finger a little?

I carry a gun to protect myself.  Guns are severely restricted in Chicago, yet it has one of the highest rates of gun crimes in the country.  Criminals know they have the upper hand on law abiding citizens, who are not FREE to protect themselves.

Chicago two days ago:  16 shot, 1 dead, in overnight violence
(are gun laws working?)
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Then get it changed the legal way, not by appointing a bunch of crazy, anti-Constitutional judges.

That is legal whether you like it or not.

>>I carry a gun to protect myself.  Guns are severely restricted in Chicago, yet it has one of the highest rates of gun crimes in the country.  Criminals know they have the upper hand on law abiding citizens, who are not FREE to protect themselves.

And you think those gangs have guns because laws are too strict? Yes, crime sucks. Do you think these guns on the street get there because the gang members go into gun stores and buy them? No! People fighting for their gun rights buy them and then they are stolen, lost, sold to "someone with the money" or a ton of other ways they get to the street.

The majority aren't the guns issued to cops and soldiers that wind up on the streets. These are the guns that Joe Blow buys. If Joe Blow stopped buying guns, there would be less on the streets.

And regardless of this argument about protecting yourself which I've been down a ton of times, that isn't really what upsets me about the whole NRA mentality:

Stop calling your gun a symbol of freedom! It's not on our flag or our money for a reason. A pistol is a weapon to kill people. That's why gang members use guns in their little emblems and crap and cops and soldiers don't!
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
Comment Utility
There's a case in Florida right now about how a neighborhood watch man had to use a gun to protect himself.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
Comment Utility
>>That is legal whether you like it or not.

What liberals can't do legislatively they do through judges who have antipathy towards the Constitution.  It's dishonest.


>>Do you think these guns on the street get there because the gang members go into gun stores and buy them? No!

Exactly.  Gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens.  Criminals have an advantage.  Not many criminals file for a gun permit.


>>A pistol is a weapon to kill people.

Exactly what i'll do to anyone that breaks through my door and threatens my family.



There are plenty of statistics showing that tough gun control laws increase criminal activity (see DC and Chicago).  And the reverse is true - with more liberal gun laws you see less crime, given the last thing a criminal wants to do is break in to a house where the probability of the resident owning a firearm is high.
0
What Should I Do With This Threat Intelligence?

Are you wondering if you actually need threat intelligence? The answer is yes. We explain the basics for creating useful threat intelligence.

 
LVL 17

Assisted Solution

by:Anthony Russo
Anthony Russo earned 10 total points
Comment Utility
>>Not many criminals file for a gun permit.

Right, so whose guns do you think they are getting on the streets? Cops? Soldiers? Most of them are from people like you. If you didn't have guns, then they wouldn't either.

>>It's dishonest.

Lots of things that are legal are dishonest. If not, we wouldn't have lawyers.

I get the whole protect my family thing. I'm not even going to argue it as I can see your side of it even though I do not agree. It's the whole NRA attitude that pisses me off the most about them standing for freedom. That's a crock of crap!
0
 
LVL 69

Assisted Solution

by:ScottPletcher
ScottPletcher earned 10 total points
Comment Utility
If guns were outlawed, none of us would have any freedom.

Guns were guaranteed so that the American people could protect themselves from their own govt.  People always forget that.  (The people are always supposed to have a RIGHT to overthrow their govt when it becomes too oppressive, remember?)

The leftists are so hyprocritical on this.  They stretch the First Amendment more than the old Gumby to cover everything they want -- walking around nude and burning a flag is somehow covered by "freedom of speech".  [And abortion is somehow read into there somewhere too.  The least law-based decision by a supreme court.]

But then leftists turn around and want to be extraordinarily restrictive in interepreting the very next amendment, the Second Amendment.  Gee, hypocrite much?


We barely have freedoms left as it is.  The cops can arrest anyone they want to.  There's some law or ordinance that will cover them for it.

They break into homes and kill people (and dogs, they LOVE to do that, it's like target practice for cops everywhere).  All under the ruse of the "war on drugs".  They're NEVER held accountable for that, even when they get the wrong house.  

They steal -- uh, technically "seize" -- vast amounts of property under the same excuse all the time.  They don't even have to ever charge you with a crime, much less convict you, and they can steal any property they want by alleging a drug connection.

They can break down doors w/o issuing a warning -- if it's part of the "war on drugs".  That's the miracle phrase that eliminates all Americans' alleged and supposed "rights".

Nearly all drugs need to be legalized just to end that kind of farce.


Without guns, any pretense of rights would end and the feds and the state would do whatever they felt like doing all the time.  That's the typical progression of all govt power throughout history.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Hey Scott! How you been? Good to have you back in the discussions.

So guns are to protect us from the government? It's not about criminals then? You and CarsRST should chat this out and pick one or the other because he is protecting himself from criminals and you from the government.

All in all, guns are to kill people. I don't plan to kill people so I don't own a gun. I'll be fine though with you owning one though since you are a responsible citizen.

The problem is all you responsible citizens eventually get rid of your guns and they wind up on the streets in the hands of criminals. That's my problem with everyone buying guns for themselves. Keep them your whole life and bury them with you and I'd be fine with it.

The worse problem is the charade that guns = freedom. I checked every dictionary I could find and wasn't able to find the definition of freedom that used the word gun or firearm. Maybe there is a special NRA dictionary that includes that definition.

Or maybe the definition of freedom is the right to kill a man. That sounds like the America I want to live in.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
Comment Utility
>>I don't plan to kill people so I don't own a gun.

We call these naive victims.  I can post article after article of people protecting themselves after a break in.


>>The problem is all you responsible citizens eventually get rid of your guns and they wind up on the streets in the hands of criminals.

I think you mean from Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder.  Look up Fast and Furious.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
Thanks Anthony!  Good right now, how about you?

Of course guns are also to protect us against criminals; no reason there can't be more than one reason, as there is more than one reason for freedom of speech.  Criminals are the most practical reason.

But the single most important reason is the need to have some protection against the govt, and retain the right to replace it if/when it becomes tyrannical.

Criminals will always get guns no matter what.  A lessened supply just means they would cost and/or be of lesser quality.  But Russia and China would no doubt sell gangsters oodles of cheap guns if they could profit off of it, as they would if the U.S. tried to ban guns.


What about the hypocricy?  The same people that invent a "right" to abortion in the Constitution, where clearly that never directly appears, try to deny gun rights, which are directly and clearly stated, and in a position of prominence second only to the 1st Amendment rights.

Our founders were truly brilliant.  Many realized that by including a Bill of Rights they were actually *limiting* our rights to *only* those in the amendents, instead of the broader rights given in the original document itself.

The courts constantly say "We don't see this right in the (whatever) amendment, so you don't have it."  WRONG.  You know being judges they've read the 9th and 10th Amendments, so clearly they are willfully ignoring them.  Any judge that does that should be impeached for violating their oath to the Constitution.  Starting with nitwits that favored the Kelo decision.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Criminals will always get guns no matter what.  A lessened supply just means they would cost and/or be of lesser quality.  But Russia and China would no doubt sell gangsters oodles of cheap guns if they could profit off of it, as they would if the U.S. tried to ban guns.

Not just lesser quality,,,lesser quantity too. That's what is important. how do you restrict the amount of something in Economics 101? Raise the price. Every criminal has one now because it is cheap and easy to get them. Thanks for proving my point.

>>What about the hypocricy?  The same people that invent a "right" to abortion in the Constitution, where clearly that never directly appears, try to deny gun rights, which are directly and clearly stated, and in a position of prominence second only to the 1st Amendment rights.

Exactly why I feel the constitution is outdated. Parts of it are not relevant to today's society. People shouldn't have guns. That's what the cops are for. To protect you from criminals. Less guns in criminals hands and cops can do a better job. you also then wont need a gun to defend yourself if the criminal doesn't have a gun in most cases.

>>But the single most important reason is the need to have some protection against the govt, and retain the right to replace it if/when it becomes tyrannical.

That's a small percentage of all the people who have guns that are planning to take arms against the government. Just the NRA nuts think that way. Most gun owners have them to protect themselves and their family from criminals and wouldn't for the first minute thing about going up against cops or soldiers or the government.

Plus you are talking about the US government. The ones who pump more money into the military than the rest of the world combined. you think bunch of people with pistols are going to overthrow the government like the Arab Spring? Now who is delusional?
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> Exactly why I feel the constitution is outdated. <<

Then call a constitutional convention and re-write it.  Or amend it, by the usual method.

But just don't ignore it because you don't like it.

That's not the way constitutions are supposed to work.

It's supposed to be the "supreme law of the land".

AS WRITTEN ... not as made up by leftists judges.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Then call a constitutional convention and re-write it.  Or amend it, by the usual method.

With a broken congress. Good chance of that ever happening. They can barely pass a bill, you expect them to be able to ammend the constitution?

>>AS WRITTEN ... not as made up by leftists judges.

Congress is to create the laws, and the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET the laws. You not agreeing with their interpretations doesn't make them wrong. By your method there is no reason for a Supreme Court. But that can't be because the founding fathers created it and they were geniuses that were always right!
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> You not agreeing with their interpretations doesn't make them wrong. <<

Any interpretation that is clearly at odds with the Constitution as written is wrong; that's not interpretation, that's fact.



>> By your method there is no reason for a Supreme Court. <<

No, there is no reason, OR LEGAL BASIS, for the supreme court to write or create laws, as they've done repeatedly in the last few decades.  They are to interpret laws, and determine if they violate the Constitution.

They are NOT supposed to arbitrarily declare the exact same things "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" at their whim.  It makes a mockery of "law", having them constantly declaring the same things "c~" or "unc~" depending on what mood they're in that year.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
Take the Kelo case.  The Constitution says:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That should be clear even to a leftist, but ... the supreme court can find its way around anything.

Essentially they said, "Look, long ago we replaced 'public use' with 'public purpose'.  So now we're just extending that a bit to include taking it for another private interest."

Of course, they had NO legal right to re-write "public use" to "public purpose" in the first place.  How do they get away with "extending" what was illegal and unconsitutional to begin with??

That ALONE should be sufficient reason to impeach any judge that voted in support of the Kelo property theft.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
Comment Utility
>>...Court is to INTERPRET the laws.



Not according to Obama's supreme court justice
Court is where policy is made.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
0

Featured Post

Top 6 Sources for Identifying Threat Actor TTPs

Understanding your enemy is essential. These six sources will help you identify the most popular threat actor tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
It is a freely distributed piece of software for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring. It works on many operating systems, in many languages.
In this tutorial you'll learn about bandwidth monitoring with flows and packet sniffing with our network monitoring solution PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg). If you're interested in additional methods for monitoring bandwidt…

743 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

16 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now