Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Good point. the term GUN GRABBER as used here and by others seems to mean the same thing it does when a third grader says "nananananana" as a taunt on the playground. And it has the same level of intellectual sophistication.
I can find absolutely no record of the Supreme Court dividing the one sentence of the Second Amendment into any PREFATORY clause and OPERANT clause before Heller. One cannot produce something which was never done.
And that is the point.
And it's not true. It's a demonization and why. Obama has been great for gun rights advocates, he's been great for firearms and ammunition sales, great for those that teach CHL classes, great for the firing ranges, in fact the only ones with a legitimate complaint are his one time supporters that are pissed because he's done nothing to advance firearm restrictions and regulations!
Bush signs bill geared to toughen screening of gun buyers
Bush signs bill geared to toughen screening of gun buyers - LA Times
The Brady Campaign is a gun control group formed by former Regan press secretary James Brady. The Brady Group grades each president with a letter grade from A to F. A is very strict on gun control and F is extremely lenient on gun control. President Obama has received an F in every category graded by the Brady Group.
Read more: Obama the most Pro-Gun President : Politics & NWO
The Brady organization existed long before Reagan and only changed its name in order to use the story of James Brady to advance its nefarious ends. That group is well known for its dishonesty.
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point
Ha, now it's Reagan and Brady are bad, don't forget George Bush, better add him in, he signed a bill that would toughen screenings on those exercising their second amendment right. And he was opposed to repealing Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban.
But aren't all three of those guys evil partisan Democrats out to destroy guns and the political base that supports the gun lobby? :roll:
Well, they're not partisan democrats to be sure, but they do/did all have more restrictive policies then Obama (as I've shown above) and yet the partisan right here calls Obama the "gun grabber"!
And, forgot to mention, he signed a bill allowing Amtrak passengers to store handguns in their checked baggage.
If Obama Is Actually Coming For Your Guns, He's Really Terrible At It
That big gun grabber Obama!!!!
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.
No - it clears up nothing. Reagans statement was very clear and applies to the Second Amendment. It is an entirely valid statement.
That's not true...you just chose to ignore it or didnt understand it.
The comment of RR's can be applied to many things...and when such is done....it's shown to not be a valid presumption.
Does that help clear it up?
I guess we'll just go with this then, since you willfully choose to ignore it, as you didnt ask for clarification (on how it doesnt apply to the 2A anymore than the other things I mentioned.).
I did read that when you originally posted it. So what? Reagan said what he said about guns and the issue and it is entirely a valid statement. I simply do not get what you think your point is.
I am always mystified how when you tell people that - instead of trying to go about it a different way so that they may be understood - they simply repeat the same thing which you already told them is NOT getting their message across.
It's not valid because of the examples I gave. You are not arguing the content of my post...IMO you cant and have your original post stand...you are attempting to argue that you just dont like that I wont accept your avoidance.
Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.
Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?
In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).
Originally Posted by haymarket
Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.
Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
What specific content of your post? Are you talking about this from 479?
which you appeared to be replying to my post that reprodced to it as a lead in .... as follows
Is that the content you are talking about?
Yes. Now, care to explain why my response was invalid?
Originally Posted by haymarket
Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.
Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.
Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?
In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).
Sure thing. I will be happy to clear that up.
Here was my post
and your response which followed
I have no idea what your first four sentences and then the conclusion you made about them has to do with my post as you keep talklng about NEED and I said nothing about NEED. The content of your post is completely disconnected from the content of my post which you produced as the lead in to yours. I see no connection at all.
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
That's the trouble with the gun crowd: when they get backed into a corner through their own illogic, they resort to nonsense as though it's a valid argument. It's just another trick and a glaring examolke of defeat.
I have no idea what your first four sentences and then the conclusion you made about them has to do with my post as you keep talklng about NEED and I said nothing about NEED. The content of your post is completely disconnected from the content of my post which you produced as the lead in to yours. I see no connection at all.
You posted a quote that said people dont need ARs. Did I imagine that?
You posted a quote that said people dont need ARs. About something covered in the 2A...a Constitutional Right.
I posted a bunch of things that people dont need, yet are allowed to have (and arent even covered by a Constitutional Right) yet can be dangerous or 'not necessary,' yet in America, personal liberty and free will are paramount and not just restricted because 'we dont need them.'
RR's quote said the same...and while it may be true people dont need ARs (and some here would contest that) that has absolutely no bearing on if they 'want' them or not.
I do not remember that. Could you please post it so I can examine it and give you a proper response?
But I made it very clear to you that you were replying to my post that you reproduced in 479 and I said NOTHING about NEED in that post you replied to.
An AR should be perhaps the most protected weapon for at least 2 reasons:
1. It represents THE militia weapon. One cannot maintain a militia without a modern rifle.
2. It represents the vast majority of rifle knowledge in this country. Banning the AR would be removing the only rifle 90% of people know (through military or police service).
Banning the AR strikes directly at the 2nd and the collective rifle proficiency of the country.
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
Thus implying that we dont 'need' it for sport and explicitly saying it for self-defense.
And beyond what I wrote, it is indeed needed to fulfill the primary goal of the 2A....for use against govt tyranny, as Ecofarm also pointed out. It doesnt matter if it's 'needed' for those other things....that isnt the purpose of the 2A to begin with.
Like I said - you want to argue with Reagan - go for it.
The Second Amendment says nothing about government tyranny. It does say a whole lot about militia service. And that is the purpose of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?