RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns?

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 12:00:33 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

So as we have plenty of evidence that the persecution took place and that denial of arms was one means used to do it over a period of 100-150 years, during which time the colonies were being founded and inhabited. That established, we have the colonies predominently protestant in nature, who only 100 year before the US constitution had been regranted the right to keep and bear arms. You think that the previous denial of that right was not fresh in the minds of the founding fathers? I'd say that is about as likely as the idea of state's rights and abolition of slavery are out of our own minds because they occured just about as far back from our date today as the rights of protestants to keep and bear arms were returned to them by the English Bill of Rights.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 301

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 1:46:30 AM

Lorr47

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

The founding fathers didn't toss out everything they had from England, they maintained much of British Common Law, just ask any lawyer what the basis of our legal system is.

Louisiana is the major exception being based on I believe French jurisprudence.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 302

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 5:33:48 AM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

Some interesting reading, especially for those that won't bother to research and want to go on popular belief and feelings instead of rational thought and research....

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/tyranny.htm

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/like/the-goal-of-socialism-is-communism/350093/ In particular "“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ”

and
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/SECONDAMENDMENT.HTM

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Lorr47)

Post #: 303

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 5:43:28 PM

Coldwarrior57

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MZaneGray9

You Yanks never cease to amaze!!
1. In a democracy you overthrow the government via the ballot box - remember?
2. If you have to resort to guns to overthrow the government don't consider yourself as living in a democracy.
3. The same can be said of the need to bear arms being based on such nonsense - the right to have and use firearms to chuck out the government.
4. NO sane person (and that necessarily excludes a huge number of drop-kick Americans) can justify your Second Amendment.
5. No SANE person in the US could fail to notice the appalling consequences that follow from the widespread possession of firearms - vide Taco, Texas. Lunacy! AND, State-sponsored murder of innocents.
6. Sheesh !!! It really is very simple, children.

well we are off topic here but we dont live in a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

_____________________________

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

(in reply to MZaneGray9)

Post #: 304

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 6:08:04 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

quote:

ORIGINAL: MZaneGray9

You Yanks never cease to amaze!!
1. In a democracy you overthrow the government via the ballot box - remember?
2. If you have to resort to guns to overthrow the government don't consider yourself as living in a democracy.
3. The same can be said of the need to bear arms being based on such nonsense - the right to have and use firearms to chuck out the government.
4. NO sane person (and that necessarily excludes a huge number of drop-kick Americans) can justify your Second Amendment.
5. No SANE person in the US could fail to notice the appalling consequences that follow from the widespread possession of firearms - vide Taco, Texas. Lunacy! AND, State-sponsored murder of innocents.
6. Sheesh !!! It really is very simple, children.

well we are off topic here but we dont live in a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

Not to mention that many people don't agree with what you say, MZane, just because you think something is true. That, and the fact because you think it is so doesn't make it so. And fter all, you resort to calling people children...an ad-hominen of emotion rather than logic and proper argument.

You need to actually do some research instead of just "from your gut" thinking. The reason for our right to bear arms is because it allows us to overthrow the government by force, if necessary.

Take some time to actually read the links with an open mind I've above....I dare ya...

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Coldwarrior57)

Post #: 305

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 10:58:13 PM

DominantDamsel

Posts: 42
Joined: 5/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Geez, how many times must it be said ?

The second amendment is not there so you can protect yourself against marauders, rapists, robbers and all sort of land pirates, the second amendment is there so you can protect yourself against the GOVERNMENT. Get it ?

Read the amendment, not between the lines, read the lines and carefully note the placement of the comma.

It has the side effect of enabling you to protect yorself from criminals, which BTW, did you ever have a backyard full of bikers who decided to get rowdy ? I have. So consider that also as an answer to your question.

T

Edited to add what I was going to write before I read the last question.

Coming after the guns and getting them are obviously two different things. Cities with strict laws can't get them all, noplace can get them all. Just forget those Tshirts, belt buckles and bumper stickers and you might be OK if you don't do anything stupid. How about a headline like this :

Six agents dead, Man wanted on gun possesion charges flees country with large amount of cash. Had no prior criminal record.

I would love to see a headline like that, because it might just go to show these MFs that we are not just going to line up for the gulag or whatever future BS they might pull. WE KNOW they are out of control. WE KNOW they are not loyal to us and WE KNOW that they are outright thieves.

Under these conditions do you really think it is a good time to be unarmed ?

T

Wonderful way of summing all of it up and I agree. Now is the time to arm ourselves with what we can afford and wait and see what happens next. In this economy and with the unexpected lurking around the corner, I think it's much better to be armed and safe than to be sorry and shyte out of luck.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 306

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 11:22:44 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MZaneGray9
You Yanks never cease to amaze!!
1. In a democracy you overthrow the government via the ballot box - remember?
2. If you have to resort to guns to overthrow the government don't consider yourself as living in a democracy.
3. The same can be said of the need to bear arms being based on such nonsense - the right to have and use firearms to chuck out the government.
4. NO sane person (and that necessarily excludes a huge number of drop-kick Americans) can justify your Second Amendment.
5. No SANE person in the US could fail to notice the appalling consequences that follow from the widespread possession of firearms - vide Taco, Texas. Lunacy! AND, State-sponsored murder of innocents.
6. Sheesh !!! It really is very simple, children.

With respect to 1, 2, and 3, exactly so. But the purpose of the Second Amendment follows logically therefrom, namely, to obviate precisely that contingency of needing them and not having them. More generally, however, it is not good will that seeks to prevent a people from possessing and employing an adequate means of defending themselves, though I admit that depending on your plans for them it might be insane not to.

Kirata the Yank

< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/1/2009 11:54:02 PM >

(in reply to MZaneGray9)

Post #: 307

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/1/2009 11:46:03 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

1642 The tudors (corrected by lucylastic Stuarts) restrict Catholics from keeping arms at home.
When William and Mary took power they turned the tables and took the right to bear arms from Protestants and gave it back to catholics
1689 The English Bill of rights gives protestants back the right to keep and bear arms.

William and Mary were protestants, that's William of Orange for the Irish amongst us. They were welcomed by parliament specifically because they weren't Catholic and replaced the Catholic James II. The Catholics in Scotland and Ireland were viciously oppressed throughout their reign.

The fact is the entire period was about little more than religious strife and the armed populace was a danger not to the rulers but to their neighbors. Using this period as an argument in favor of private ownership of firearms shows an amusing lack of knowledge of the period. It could be argued that the 1689 Bill of Rights and specifically the line allowing protestants to own firearms led directly and inevitable to the centuries of "troubles" in Ireland. So by allowing firearm ownership Britain got itself a violent terrorist uprising that has lasted off and on for better than 3 centuries.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 308

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 5:25:53 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

OK rather than arguing a point I wasn't making argue the point I was making DomKEn.

Argue the point that our 2nd amendment doesn't have it's roots based on the 1689 document and the back and forth denial of the right to keep arms that proceeded it from Henry VIII to William and Mary.

I've connected the dots from the various laws denying the right to one side or the other over a period of time about 100 year prior to the writing of the Constitution.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 309

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 5:45:46 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

OK rather than arguing a point I wasn't making argue the point I was making DomKEn.

Argue the point that our 2nd amendment doesn't have it's roots based on the 1689 document and the back and forth denial of the right to keep arms that proceeded it from Henry VIII to William and Mary.

I've connected the dots from the various laws denying the right to one side or the other over a period of time about 100 year prior to the writing of the Constitution.

Our 2nd ammendment has a lot more to do, based on the writings of the authors, with then recent experience with a citizen's militia as a substitute for a standing army when the colonies faced hostile neighbors, the french and the native americans.

Realistically citizen ownership of firearms is no guarantor of our freedom in the modern age. If the army was to actually go into the field against the populace no firearms available to civilians would have any significant impact on us being oppressed. I will point out that immediately post 9/11 the US government rounded up many thousands of legal residents without warrants or due process and the outcomes would not have differed one whit if those people had been well armed and actively defending themselves.

Therefore, IMO, the 2nd ammendment is a relic of a previous era and while I favor allowing private ownership of some firearms I favor real gun control, a total and complete ban on handguns seems like a good starting point.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 310

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 6:21:26 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

DomKen so you are saying that the English common law that although battled back and forth over who got the right, had for centuries allowed and even at some points mandated that people keep and bear arms suitable to their condition, that was the precedent for the american colonies gun mandates for all colonists. (Laws mandating that every head of household own a musket and keep powder and lead in their home) wasn't the predecessor to that recent experience with militia?

Isolating the two is silly they are very much connected.

The "recent" militia experience was a result of the mandate that every colonist bring musket lead and powder, or be forced to buy and keep them, which draws it's legislative line back to English common law requireing that subjects keep and bear arms, along with the back and forth denials of that right based on religion.

(in reply to xBullx)

Post #: 311

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 6:35:04 AM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

DomKen,
I can see you are in Chicago. Some of the strictest gun controls are already in place there. In fact, Illinois does not issue concealed carry permits, just FOIDs.    How's that working for you?   http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime/by-primary-type/weapons-violation/

Illinois is an example of why gun bans do not work. Just because they are "illegal" to have doesn't mean people won't have them. D.C. is no different.

48 other states at least have SOME process to let people carry (http://www.handgunlaw.us/ ) their weapons, though some states are permissive and others are restrictive.

Can an armed populace replace its government by force? Certainly, even today. Would there be bloodshed? Yep.
Why the Second Amendment? “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ” - V Lenin

You really need to read the article at http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/tyranny.htm

And the one at http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/SECONDAMENDMENT.HTM

You might not believe it, but at one time I thought the same as you did about firearms.   I even ended up one time facing a pistol in the hands of someone. And thought even more gun control was necessary. But as I researched and matured, I realized I was wrong. And as I especially researched our Second Amendment, I came to realize a lot more about a person's responsibility, if they accept it, to defend themselves, and as a result, their neighbors.

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to xBullx)

Post #: 312

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 6:42:42 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen so you are saying that the English common law that although battled back and forth over who got the right, had for centuries allowed and even at some points mandated that people keep and bear arms suitable to their condition, that was the precedent for the american colonies gun mandates for all colonists. (Laws mandating that every head of household own a musket and keep powder and lead in their home) wasn't the predecessor to that recent experience with militia?

Isolating the two is silly they are very much connected.

The "recent" militia experience was a result of the mandate that every colonist bring musket lead and powder, or be forced to buy and keep them, which draws it's legislative line back to English common law requireing that subjects keep and bear arms, along with the back and forth denials of that right based on religion.

I am telling you that you have your facts wrong and haven't read what the founders wrote.

There was no requirement in Britain for commoners to own a firearm. There was a legal right that allowed people to own weapons appropriate to their class, IOW none at all unless you were a land owner.

Using the Bill of Rights of 1689, a fancy name for the terms of surrender of Parliament to a foreign invader, as justification for anything is beyond pointless.

The Founders had a very recent experience from the French and indian War where the british standing army had not done much of a job protecting the people anbd citizen militias had filled in the gap. Those same militias had formed the core of the rebellion against George III and the Founders believed that the militia could substitute for a standing army, which they had reason to distrust.

However you failed to respond to my salient point, do you truly think personal ownership of firearms is a guarantor of your freedom? Do you believe that civilians with weapons can defend themselves against the US Army?

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 313

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 7:46:42 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

However you failed to respond to my salient point, do you truly think personal ownership of firearms is a guarantor of your freedom? Do you believe that civilians with weapons can defend themselves against the US Army?

If you don't mind me commenting on the question, I think there are a few things to bear in mind here. I can see the obvious point you're making, of course. The US Army is equipped beyond the wildest fantasies of any gun nut. But the fact remains that guerilla warfare is nasty stuff. "Pacifying" a country the size of the United States with an armed and determined citizenry would be no waltz even for a professional well-equipped military. And the US Army would have an even more difficult row to hoe than an invading force, I think, because American soldiers would feel strongly inclined to refuse to obey orders if those orders became sufficiently offensive to the Constitution, which they most certainly would have to become for any effort to suppress and disarm the citizenry to succeed. But personally, I'm inclined to think the Founders realized that in practical terms the "maintenance of a free state" requires a more general self-defense against anybody the citizens need to defend themselves against, which then as now covers more than just "gummint".

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/2/2009 7:47:05 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 314

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 8:18:36 AM

xBullx

Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline

-fast reply-

Now wait just a damn minute here.

I went back and edited my comment so it didn't flame or personally attack the poster, I addressed his comments as I had originally intended it to mean and seen on my own it didn’t come off as an attack on his person.

But since I most obviously need to explain this again I will.

To imply that defending yourself is no longer possible or prudent is a slave’s mentality and should be understood to be such. A free man must and will fight by any and all means necessary to maintain his rights to freedom. That was the intent of the FREE men that established this country and that should be the intent of the free men we are supposed to be now. To dismiss our right and responsibility to preserve freedom, defend our families, or provide food is just contrary to the responsibilities of a leader, provider and dominant (each packs alpha). I am not debating DomKen’s historical accuracy of the British 19th century. I was commenting on the attitude displayed that we seemingly couldn’t and therefore shouldn’t stand up for our rights. It sure sounded that his implication was that we are no longer able to stand up to such a powerful Army so we shouldn’t. That’s bullshit ( I assure you that men and old warrior friends of mine that are familiar with my tenasity have no eagerness to test my resolve or ability) and this is certainly not the only reason a man should be prepared for any future contingencies (I’ll address this shortly).

Concurrently to sensor an opinion about commentary made, not only seems a violation of another amended article of the said constitution, I believe it might violate the TOS of this place. I went back and altered my comment to ensure it addressed the comment and not the author personally, I do believe that initially my comment was easily misunderstood (I corrected that). I believe that DomKen is expressing a slave's mentality and or morality; nothing wrong with that morality if he is comfortable with that. I just happen to think contrary to that concept. I would hope that I am still aloud the right of an opinion of opposition toward his comments, or has the big "O" enacted further executive orders that deny me that?

At that I will respond to DomKen's most recent query as to whether owning and being armed with simple firearms can match the standing US Army. Without them (weapons), you have absolutely no chance. But with them, along with the training the same US Army provided me along my determination to remain free, I assure you that I am certainly a match for any Army. Concurrently I will not stand alone; I will not go away and submit quietly to spare myself hardship, or to simply placate any potential tyrannical forces.

Let’s just evaluate this from a simple perspective not having a single thing to do with governmental overthrow or other such whimsical folly. Let’s say tomorrow that Yellowstone erupts and we are cast into chaos. Hell it happened in New Orleans (damn you people for making me drag out the flooding reference that someone else beats to death). Now the "impending" Yellowstone eruption is supposed to be a continental catastrophe if not Global in scope. Should I wait for an Army or a Police Force to provide and instill order as we witnessed in other recent disasters? Or should I myself be prepared to defend and supply my home and the rights I have as a free man. Crazy enough if our political system crashed due to such an incident, I would actually fight through such an event and seek to help reestablish the United Staes Constitution, I actually believe in that damn “ancient” parchment.

But in the meantime I would have to rely on my personal stores and ability to come out of this on my own, just me and my family along with a few close friends that also have an idea that being prepared for anything (you know, plan for the worst and hope for the best) at least affords us a chance at survival.

Ohhhh, I’ll need my pistols and assault rifles, my Ranger Handbook, a few other survival manuals that remind me of details I don’t stay rehearsed on, not to mention my long range, big game rifles to assist me in this survival endeavor. So you can rely on the Fed to secure your bed, I have a much larger degree of trust in myself. I suppose I should mention, I don’t look forward to such a time as others might, I simply believe in being prepared for life’s little inevitabilities.

So as you can see, I have no delusions of romantic warrior like grandeur, I am a simple man, with a common (American) plan.

Anyway, have a good day.

< Message edited by xBullx -- 3/2/2009 8:45:39 AM >

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull

I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 315

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 8:20:28 AM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

However you failed to respond to my salient point, do you truly think personal ownership of firearms is a guarantor of your freedom? Do you believe that civilians with weapons can defend themselves against the US Army?

Why not? The citizens of Iraq, a country roughly the size of California and with one tenth the population of the United States, have been doing a pretty credible job of it over the last 5 or 6 years. Granted, the situations are not directly comparable, but I think the example more than illustrates the difficulty even a large, well-trained modern army has in defeating a determined, armed populace. I'm not anticipating things will ever come to that, and I'm certainly hoping they don't, but if they do I won't be putting my money on the federal government.What are they going to do, nuke half their own country?

< Message edited by ThatDamnedPanda -- 3/2/2009 8:30:28 AM >

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 316

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 8:52:30 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

Well Bull,that`s a lot right there.

Don`t worry,you can still have your assault rifles,just w/ 10 round mags.

If your`re really worried about something apocalyptic,trade one of the rifles(the ColtAR ,piece of junk,keep the AK-47)for a few of these. Or this one.

They`ll be worth more that gold in a disaster.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 3/2/2009 8:58:58 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)

Post #: 317

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 9:03:34 AM

xBullx

Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline

Thanks for the links....

I agree and have got that covered.

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull

I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 318

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 9:06:25 AM

Aynne88

Posts: 3873
Joined: 8/29/2008
Status: offline

My god Owner, where do all the Ruby Ridgers live anyway that plotting to have to overthrow the US Army and stockpile weapons is actually a thought? I admit, I am pro-gun and I own handguns, but this is ridiculous.

Did anyone watch 60 minutes last night? Everyone okay with the fact that the US is the main consumer of illegal drugs from Mexico, thereby supporting Mexican drug cartels and we are also the main supplier of assualt rifles and other assorted instruments of destruction killing our own border guards and thousands of Mexican citizens? All good with that are we?

_____________________________

As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.
—Isaac Bashevis Singer, writer and Nobel laureate (1902–1991)

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 319

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after peo... - 3/2/2009 9:17:13 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

Shhhh,.. don`t talk about cause and effect ,Aynne.

It`s not politically correct.

To put a sharper point on the differences in mindset,there are those like you and I and Bull,who aren`t waiting for the end times or hoping for the overthrow our our government(and all the horrific things that that entails)and have a healthy rights/responsibilities POV, when it comes to firearms ownership.

And there are those who do,and see the 2nd amendment in such terms.Which is not valid and an abuse of the 2nd amendment.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 3/2/2009 9:18:58 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Aynne88)

Post #: 320

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns?

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109