yes, there is a "right" to own an ar 15. it's called the second amendment. some people just do not get it.
The 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, and Mass Murder
- Thread starter The Hedgehog
- Start date
yes, there is a "right" to own an ar 15. it's called the second amendment. some people just do not get it.
dustinf
Active member
Same as there is a "right" not to be searched without probable cause, but that doesn't stop the government from doing it.
Fact of the matter is, the precedent has been set. Executive orders can violate the Bill of Rights, and can be use to drive an administration's agenda.
Thanks, GW Bush...
dustinf
Active member
Here is an article about a couple of the more contraversial orders still in affect:
dustinf
Active member
Here's the article link:
http://moraloutrage.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/controversial-executive-orders-that-remain-in-effect/
They are public record, eventually. They're all listed on the Whitehouse website(here are GW's):
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
there's obamas for the first 4 years.
and something from wordpress is an opinion. thought it might come from something a little more reliable. but thanks for the link.
there's obamas for the first 4 years.
and something from wordpress is an opinion. thought it might come from something a little more reliable. but thanks for the link.
dustinf
Active member
Believe what you want, but those executive orders still exist and have been upheld in court.
dustinf
Active member
Yeah, because all other media is generated by unbiased, emotion less, unaffiliated, righteous journalist's...
dustinf
Active member
What do you think every article ever written is?
Again, the facts in the article are correct. Whether the executive order is described as covert or not, doesn't change the FACT that those orders deny us all, of our unalienable rights.
You're talking semantics, when we should all be questioning who, WE THE PEOPLE elect President and what ALL politicians will do, to achieve their personal agenda.
RobG
Well-known member
It is just bizarre that people maintain that the 2nd gives them the right to own a specific class of weapons when it so demonstratively does not. Where do you draw the line? Nukes? Bazookas? Cannons? This talk reminds me of Monty Python's Black Night still trying to battle after his arms and legs have been hacked off. "Come back and get what's coming to you, I'll bite your legs off!"
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,674
RobG, the first post clearly says "small arms" not WMD, mustard gas, drones, or my farts. Small arms are already regulated federally- machine guns, etc. Do you think we need to have more regulations or restrictions, to make us more safe from mass murder?
Can anybody find an example of where more "gun control" has reduced mass murders? Haven't seen that info yet, but plenty to the contrary.
Can anybody find an example of where more "gun control" has reduced mass murders? Haven't seen that info yet, but plenty to the contrary.
robg, do you know what the second says? the right to keep and bear arms. an ar 15 is an arm. a nuke, as far as I know, is not considered an "arm". same with bazookas and cannons. I draw the line higher than liberals who want to control me and what I can own. guess you can not say the same. and GH is right. where are the stats that show any control is preventing this stuff. maybe we should look at the stats from chicago? do find it interesting how may folks on the sites I visit want the government to control them MORE than they do now. actually, not interesting. pathetic is more like it.
RobG
Well-known member
Greenhorn, I was talking about TLC's statement.
What can I say, you are correct in saying you don't know. The Supreme Court says you are wrong because there are "arms" you can't buy, and others (e.g. machine guns) that you *may* be able to buy only if you pass certain criteria. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but they are the ones that determine what rights you have.
Anyway, this is from the freedictionary:
arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
I'll say in passing that a high capacity magazine probably isn't an arm, and that is more of a relevant issue than how scary a gun looks.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it is just crazy how people insist they have the right to something they demonstratively do not. You didn't have the right to buy "assault weapons" (according to the law's goofy definition) during 1994-2004. That is just a fact no matter how much you insist otherwise. How can you disagree?
What can I say, you are correct in saying you don't know. The Supreme Court says you are wrong because there are "arms" you can't buy, and others (e.g. machine guns) that you *may* be able to buy only if you pass certain criteria. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but they are the ones that determine what rights you have.
Anyway, this is from the freedictionary:
arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
I'll say in passing that a high capacity magazine probably isn't an arm, and that is more of a relevant issue than how scary a gun looks.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it is just crazy how people insist they have the right to something they demonstratively do not. You didn't have the right to buy "assault weapons" (according to the law's goofy definition) during 1994-2004. That is just a fact no matter how much you insist otherwise. How can you disagree?
Anyway, this is from the freedictionary:
arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
guess I was right. you do not know what the second says. as you can see by your defintion, it talks about troops when talking about icbm's, bombs, and other nuclear arms. the second talks about INDIVIDUALS.
what's scary is when people who are clueless, act as though they know what they are talking about. I call these people liberals.
arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
guess I was right. you do not know what the second says. as you can see by your defintion, it talks about troops when talking about icbm's, bombs, and other nuclear arms. the second talks about INDIVIDUALS.
what's scary is when people who are clueless, act as though they know what they are talking about. I call these people liberals.
RobG
Well-known member
TLC, you left out the part about militia... but the relevant question is how do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban is an example proving that your beliefs are wrong? You did not have that right during that period.
sorry for believing you knew the difference between militia and troops. thought the way you were talking, you knew what it was. my bad for giving you that much credit.
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
troop (trp)
n.
1. A group or company of people, animals, or things. See Synonyms at band2, flock1.
2.
a. A group of soldiers.
b. troops Military units; soldiers.c. A unit of cavalry, armored vehicles, or artillery in a European army, corresponding to a platoon in the U.S. Army.
3. A unit of at least five Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts under the guidance of an adult leader.
4. A great many; a lot.
pretty sure this takes care of the difference between militia and troops. from your source. free dictionary.
could be wrong, but this is not 1994 thru 2004. last time I looked, it was 2013. and that TEMPORARY ban you like to bring up, ended. or have we all missed something? and blacks and women couldn't vote. blacks could not own property. alcohol was banned. deer hunting in illinois was banned. remember these things that you couldn't do at one time, but now you can?
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
troop (trp)
n.
1. A group or company of people, animals, or things. See Synonyms at band2, flock1.
2.
a. A group of soldiers.
b. troops Military units; soldiers.c. A unit of cavalry, armored vehicles, or artillery in a European army, corresponding to a platoon in the U.S. Army.
3. A unit of at least five Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts under the guidance of an adult leader.
4. A great many; a lot.
pretty sure this takes care of the difference between militia and troops. from your source. free dictionary.
could be wrong, but this is not 1994 thru 2004. last time I looked, it was 2013. and that TEMPORARY ban you like to bring up, ended. or have we all missed something? and blacks and women couldn't vote. blacks could not own property. alcohol was banned. deer hunting in illinois was banned. remember these things that you couldn't do at one time, but now you can?
Similar threads
