Comments on: Why We Shouldn’t Believe Obama’s Latest Lie About the Second Amendment http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/ Off-the-cuff commentary on the day's events Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:48:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: No2Liberals http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145058 No2Liberals Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:12:42 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145058 librlmrin, What part of militia <strong>do</strong> you understand? You've already demonstrated your lack of understanding of the Constitution, so give us your version of what a militia <strong>is</strong>. I wait with great anticipation your distorted definition. Also, your being a librl, and supporting the rule of law, must give you many moments of dismay, with your lefty comrades. librlmrin,
What part of militia do you understand?
You’ve already demonstrated your lack of understanding of the Constitution, so give us your version of what a militia is.
I wait with great anticipation your distorted definition.
Also, your being a librl, and supporting the rule of law, must give you many moments of dismay, with your lefty comrades.

]]> By: Pat http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145053 Pat Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:49:12 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145053 I believe individuals should be legally allowed to carry guns too, but the Court did not rule on the absolute right to bear arms in the Heller case. If the second amendment was as clearly applicable as you think it is, it wouldn't have taken 230 years and an arch-conservative majority for SCOTUS to grant a writ to a case on that point. The Court wrote, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Where does it say in the 2nd amendment that only certain citizens enjoy the right to bear arms in authorized areas? Heller established the right of citizens to possess sidearms and rifles, that's about it. Aside from the overturning of the DC law and applying it to the States, the Court still has not settled the central argument (absolute right,) as evidenced by the open door left to the lower courts by Heller. I believe individuals should be legally allowed to carry guns too, but the Court did not rule on the absolute right to bear arms in the Heller case. If the second amendment was as clearly applicable as you think it is, it wouldn’t have taken 230 years and an arch-conservative majority for SCOTUS to grant a writ to a case on that point. The Court wrote, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Where does it say in the 2nd amendment that only certain citizens enjoy the right to bear arms in authorized areas?

Heller established the right of citizens to possess sidearms and rifles, that’s about it. Aside from the overturning of the DC law and applying it to the States, the Court still has not settled the central argument (absolute right,) as evidenced by the open door left to the lower courts by Heller.

]]> By: Robbie Cooper http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145048 Robbie Cooper Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:50:08 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145048 Your reading of the Constitution is flawed, incomplete, and at odds with the interpretation of the SCOTUS. You are omitting the most pertinent and relevant part of the second amendment: <blockquote>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</blockquote> And where you are wrong is that very important comma between the well regulated militia and "the people". Which are two entirely different entities. The "well regulated" part of the second amendment applies to the militia. The "shall not be infringed" applies to "the people". What part of <em>that </em>do <em>you </em>not understand? What part of "individual right" do you not understand? Because that's what the SCOTUS ruled in Heller vs. D.C. _________ As for us "cowboys" deciding which parts of our laws (i.e., the Constitution) we choose to follow, what say you to your boy Obama ignoring the enoulment clause of the Constitution to select Hillary Clinton, who is Constitutionally prohibited from holding that office? What? I'm sorry, I can't hear you chocking on your own hypocrisy. Your reading of the Constitution is flawed, incomplete, and at odds with the interpretation of the SCOTUS.

You are omitting the most pertinent and relevant part of the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And where you are wrong is that very important comma between the well regulated militia and “the people”.

Which are two entirely different entities. The “well regulated” part of the second amendment applies to the militia.

The “shall not be infringed” applies to “the people”. What part of that do you not understand?

What part of “individual right” do you not understand? Because that’s what the SCOTUS ruled in Heller vs. D.C.

_________

As for us “cowboys” deciding which parts of our laws (i.e., the Constitution) we choose to follow, what say you to your boy Obama ignoring the enoulment clause of the Constitution to select Hillary Clinton, who is Constitutionally prohibited from holding that office?

What? I’m sorry, I can’t hear you chocking on your own hypocrisy.

]]> By: librlmarine http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145043 librlmarine Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:42:12 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145043 The gun addicts I know are always looking for an excuse to buy another gun. This was just the excuse they needed. I can't justify the expense at this time. The gun addicts I know are always looking for an excuse to buy another gun.
This was just the excuse they needed.
I can’t justify the expense at this time.

]]> By: SB Smith http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145042 SB Smith Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:42:41 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145042 There is a tiny bit of humor here. Because of his F rating with the NRA and his statements about firearms....Obama has Singlehandedly stimulated a segment of the economy......Firearm Sales ! :-D There is a tiny bit of humor here.
Because of his F rating with the NRA and his statements about firearms….Obama has Singlehandedly stimulated a segment of the economy……Firearm Sales !

:-D

]]> By: librlmarine http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145041 librlmarine Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:39:35 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145041 Carried a copy of the Constitution since 1987, its bicentennial, to show those idiots who, though they may have taken an oath "to support, protect and defend it," have never read it, much less understand the original intent of those folks who codified blacks as property, to include that enlightened owner of over 200 slaves, Virginian George Mason. It says "a well REGULATED militia." What part of REGULATED do you not understand? We are a nation of laws, not men. You cowboys don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey. Carried a copy of the Constitution since 1987, its bicentennial, to show those idiots who, though they may have taken an oath “to support, protect and defend it,” have never read it, much less understand the original intent of those folks who codified blacks as property, to include that enlightened owner of over 200 slaves, Virginian George Mason.
It says “a well REGULATED militia.”
What part of REGULATED do you not understand?
We are a nation of laws, not men.
You cowboys don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey.

]]> By: No2Liberals http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145039 No2Liberals Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:06:15 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145039 Robbie, your emphasis on the phrase <em>common sense</em>, is the key. When it comes to liberals, and that phrase, it is a <strong>code word</strong>. Which we all know is what libs dread most about conservatives. With liberals, their sense is nonsense, and common is anything but. The examples you listed from the NRA site are a long list of reasons why he can't be trusted on this issue, and from a short political career. With the dinguses controlling Congress, B-HO would rubber stamp any anti-gun legislation they sent to his desk, he wouldn't have to propose anything, and could weasel and double-speak about his alleged <em>common sense</em>, and support for our God given rights. That so many Americans are purchasing guns and ammo, many for the first time, is a much more reliable indicator of how trusted his word is, than anything that comes from his lying cake-hole. Now, with Rep. "Nostrilitis" Waxman in charge of the Commerce committee, <a href="http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm" rel="nofollow">this absurd piece of legislation</a> might go national, instead of state to state. Be sure to click on the sample legislation, for details. Would I comply with such a law? <strong>Hell no!</strong> I do not acknowledge any act of government that makes my guaranteed rights null and void. With this abomination, and many others, as an example, there is no doubt that the leftists in this country are interested in totalitarian control. <blockquote>‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’ ‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’ — George Mason </blockquote> Robbie, your emphasis on the phrase common sense, is the key.
When it comes to liberals, and that phrase, it is a code word. Which we all know is what libs dread most about conservatives. With liberals, their sense is nonsense, and common is anything but.
The examples you listed from the NRA site are a long list of reasons why he can’t be trusted on this issue, and from a short political career.
With the dinguses controlling Congress, B-HO would rubber stamp any anti-gun legislation they sent to his desk, he wouldn’t have to propose anything, and could weasel and double-speak about his alleged common sense, and support for our God given rights.
That so many Americans are purchasing guns and ammo, many for the first time, is a much more reliable indicator of how trusted his word is, than anything that comes from his lying cake-hole.
Now, with Rep. “Nostrilitis” Waxman in charge of the Commerce committee, this absurd piece of legislation might go national, instead of state to state. Be sure to click on the sample legislation, for details. Would I comply with such a law? Hell no! I do not acknowledge any act of government that makes my guaranteed rights null and void. With this abomination, and many others, as an example, there is no doubt that the leftists in this country are interested in totalitarian control.

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’
— George Mason

]]> By: Pat http://urbangrounds.com/2008/12/obama-wants-your-guns/#comment-145035 Pat Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:46:23 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/?p=3590#comment-145035 Thanks, but I've covered that area pretty well all by myself for 46 years without the need for armed civilian assistance. Interesting how you think some citizens deserve protection more than others. It's torn from the same page of the book that says some citizens are more equal than others. Good to see you're carrying on the tradition. Thanks, but I’ve covered that area pretty well all by myself for 46 years without the need for armed civilian assistance.

Interesting how you think some citizens deserve protection more than others. It’s torn from the same page of the book that says some citizens are more equal than others. Good to see you’re carrying on the tradition.

]]>