Obama takes no action on gun control;

[Bigfatbillsfan]

ignorance knows no bounds... and this guy is a professor???

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_2322773.html

 

I don't agree with you on much. But here I must agree. I hope this guy was writing this as satire. Otherwise he's a complete a$$

[B-Large]

"Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws."

 

 

"Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color." He added, "Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence."

 

 

Some quotes from Ron Paul on the issues of Violence, Gun Control, and our Own Hyposcrisy.....

[Bigfatbillsfan]

If such legislation is passed are gun owners who "stand their ground" still law-abiding citizens?

 

That's a good question and one that would end up going to the supreme court most likely. I would argue that they are still law abiding citizens based on the fact that they have the right to bare arms according to the Constitution. In that case the government would have no leagal jusistiction to take their guns away.

 

State's, or even Congress cannot just pass laws that preempt the rights that are given to us guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

[Gene Frenkle]

That's a good question and one that would end up going to the supreme court most likely. I would argue that they are still law abiding citizens based on the fact that they have the right to bare arms according to the Constitution. In that case the government would have no leagal jusistiction to take their guns away.

 

State's, or even Congress cannot just pass laws that preempt the rights that are given to us guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

Nobody's advocating mandating long sleeves here. Your Constitutional right to wear a tank top is not under attack by any body, either foreign or domestic.

[3rdnlng]

 

Nobody's advocating mandating long sleeves here. Your Constitutional right to wear a tank top is not under attack by any body, either foreign or domestic.

 

Au contraire, If you are a woman you can't do that in Iran.

[Gene Frenkle]

Au contraire, If you are a woman you can't do that in Iran.

Iran is kind of like Syria when it comes to important rights like this. It's despicable what goes on in these places, but as an American citizen, my first concern has to be what's going on in the good ol US of A.

[3rdnlng]

Iran is kind of like Syria when it comes to important rights like this. It's despicable what goes on in these places, but as an American citizen, my first concern has to be what's going on in the good ol US of A.

 

You speakum with forked tongue. This is a quote from you in the post I responded to:

 

"Nobody's advocating mandating long sleeves here. Your Constitutional right to wear a tank top is not under attack by any body, either foreign or domestic."

 

 

Please, no more Obamaspeak.

[Rob's House]

If such legislation is passed are gun owners who "stand their ground" still law-abiding citizens?

What is it to refuse to obey an illegal act of congress?

[Gene Frenkle]

You speakum with forked tongue. This is a quote from you in the post I responded to:

 

"Nobody's advocating mandating long sleeves here. Your Constitutional right to wear a tank top is not under attack by any body, either foreign or domestic."

 

 

Please, no more Obamaspeak.

Burkas in Iran are neither a foreign nor domestic threat to the USA, one's level of paranoia notwithstanding.

 

What is it to refuse to obey an illegal act of congress?

Who gets to decide if an act of congress is illegal?

[Rob's House]

 

Who gets to decide if an act of congress is illegal?

According to you, congress.

[Gene Frenkle]

According to you, congress.

I'm confused. Are you implying that every person should be able to decide for himself whether or not an act of congress is illegal?

[Rob's House]

 

I'm confused. Are you implying that every person should be able to decide for himself whether or not an act of congress is illegal?

I'm saying that when congress acts beyond the scope of its authority the legislation is void & one is not under any moral or legal obligation to comply. Law enforcement & the courts may still impose sanctions, but that is a matter of actual consequences rather than a matter of legitimacy of law.

[3rdnlng]

I'm confused. Are you implying that every person should be able to decide for himself whether or not an act of congress is illegal?

 

 

You see, there are these 9 judges who have a little to say about things. They can even call mandates a tax, even when the mandater himself says it's not a tax. Of course I can decide for myself if an act of congress is illegal too. I can believe in plural marriage and hanging atheists also. It's when I hang your godless ass is when I'll get in trouble.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Nobody's advocating mandating long sleeves here. Your Constitutional right to wear a tank top is not under attack by any body, either foreign or domestic.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here other than an attempt to argue your point by reduction to the absurd. Your analogy doesn't work de to the fact that no one here would believe that long sleeves would be a danger.monst cases. Sleeves are not produced with a degree of malice the way that guns are. And as far as I know, no one has ever been killed using a shirt sleeve.

 

The uneasiness of society toward guns derives from the fact that their main purpose is to injure or kill.

 

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to:

 

a) Protect the nation if it was ivaded due to the week military strenth of the nation at the time of it's founding.

b) Protect the people from the United States in the case the the government should ever turn against them.

 

Whether or not this is outdated is up for debate. If the goverment turns on us now there's no way we're ever going to stand up to the technology that is going to be turned on us. I would be fine with a ban on certain types of weapons like asault rifles. I see no need for a person to be keeping and AR in their home.

 

Burkas in Iran are neither a foreign nor domestic threat to the USA, one's level of paranoia notwithstanding.

 

 

Who gets to decide if an act of congress is illegal?

 

The Supreme Court.

[Gene Frenkle]

What about the time between when an act of Congress is passed and the Supreme Court rules?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Gene Frenkle

[3rdnlng]

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here other than an attempt to argue your point by reduction to the absurd. Your analogy doesn't work de to the fact that no one here would believe that long sleeves would be a danger.monst cases. Sleeves are not produced with a degree of malice the way that guns are. And as far as I know, no one has ever been killed using a shirt sleeve.

 

The uneasiness of society toward guns derives from the fact that their main purpose is to injure or kill.

 

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to:

 

a) Protect the nation if it was ivaded due to the week military strenth of the nation at the time of it's founding.

b) Protect the people from the United States in the case the the government should ever turn against them.

 

Whether or not this is outdated is up for debate. If the goverment turns on us now there's no way we're ever going to stand up to the technology that is going to be turned on us. I would be fine with a ban on certain types of weapons like asault rifles. I see no need for a person to be keeping and AR in their home.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court.

 

 

Bare arms, or bear arms?

[Gene Frenkle]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here other than an attempt to argue your point by reduction to the absurd. Your analogy doesn't work de to the fact that no one here would believe that long sleeves would be a danger.monst cases. Sleeves are not produced with a degree of malice the way that guns are. And as far as I know, no one has ever been killed using a shirt sleeve.

 

The uneasiness of society toward guns derives from the fact that their main purpose is to injure or kill.

 

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to:

 

a) Protect the nation if it was ivaded due to the week military strenth of the nation at the time of it's founding.

b) Protect the people from the United States in the case the the government should ever turn against them.

 

Whether or not this is outdated is up for debate. If the goverment turns on us now there's no way we're ever going to stand up to the technology that is going to be turned on us. I would be fine with a ban on certain types of weapons like asault rifles. I see no need for a person to be keeping and AR in their home.

Duck! Nevermind.

 

It's BEAR arms, not BARE arms. Bear is not just something you shoot at in the woods. Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid, Tommy?

[keepthefaith]

 

Whether or not this is outdated is up for debate. If the goverment turns on us now there's no way we're ever going to stand up to the technology that is going to be turned on us. I would be fine with a ban on certain types of weapons like asault rifles. I see no need for a person to be keeping and AR in their home.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court.

 

 

OK, what is your definition of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle"?

[Alaska Darin]

OK, what is your definition of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle"?

Anything that scares him or some other uneducated liberal.

[B-Man]

Anything that scares him or some other uneducated liberal.

 

 

‘No, They Don’t Keep Firing’

By Patrick Brennan

 

RA president David Keene appeared on Face the Nation this morning, and spent some of the time rebutting many of the misleading impressions Americans hold about gun control and firearms, including the assumption that “military style” “assault weapons” fire at an exceptionally high rate.

Schieffer began the discussion by asking Keene, “will you oppose, as the National Rifle Association, any attempt to tighten the gun laws, to do what even the International Association of Police Chiefs say is a good idea, and that is to ban these military-style assault weapons? . . . Will you continue to oppose that?”

 

Keene explained, “we will continue to oppose a ban on semi-automatic weapons . . . These aren’t military weapons. If we equipped our army with the AR-15 [the weapon used in the Newtown tragedy], we’d be beaten by every Third World dictatorship. Military weapons are fully automatic weapons and that’s illegal, you don’t get those. That’s not what we’re talking about. The impression often is, Bob, that that’s what we’re talking about, but it isn’t.”

 

Right on cue, the host tried to pretend, in fact, that is what they were talking about, asking, “how many rounds can these weapons discharge, say, in five seconds?” “They fire when you pull the trigger,” Keene explained, also known as the definition of semi-automatic.

 

Schieffer then retorted, “And they keep firing.” “No, they don’t keep firing,” Keene explained, “that’s a fully automatic weapon.”

 

Stymied, Schieffer pivoted, “but these guns are dangerous. Even Justice Scalia . . .” The host argued that even conservative justices on the Supreme Court have not argued that regulating some types of weapons would constitute a violation of the individual right to bear arms — a straw man Keene was not advancing.

 

Keene, earlier in the program, had actually explained that the NRA does support at least one specific tightening of America’s gun laws — guess Schieffer wasn’t listening — when he explained that they have pushed for more states to include mental-health status as a disqualifier in the registries they use for background checks.