Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance' - Page 8

Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

This is a discussion on Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance' within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by guardmt;2518431[B ]Insanity? So we roll over and let them continue to do what they please?[/B] They is us, my friend. We vote ...

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 205
Like Tree353Likes

Thread: Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

  1. #106
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,669
    Quote Originally Posted by guardmt;2518431[B
    ]Insanity? So we roll over and let them continue to do what they please?[/B]
    They is us, my friend. We vote for them. "They" come from amongst us. Just because you or I don't like
    some particular set of laws, gives us no right to supplant our judgment over that of Congress's judgment, and no
    right whatsoever of rebellion. We have the right to petition for redress of grievances; we have a right to peacefully
    assemble; to speak out. We have no unilateral right to take up arms against the United States. I'm amazed
    that, the anarchy which would follow aside, anyone would think of such as a reasonable course.

    Believe me, posts and discussions of this sort harm gun owners. If anti-s read them on the floor of Congress and if
    the news people re-published them, we would come out looking extremely unreasonable.

    Your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, does not extend to armed challenge against lawfully elected
    officials. Get that, or you could have a fine old age in a Super Max.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #107
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    No difference. The Federal Government is the product of the constitution.
    That is a debatable point really

    The whole problem is single issue voters. They see a skin color and they vote that way. They see gay rights and they vote that way. They see someone go on a TV and say "we want to make the rich people pay more" and there are people who vote for that guy.

    Too many people look at one issue and make their decision based on that and that alone. Too few of us look at the whole person and everything they believe and make a sound decision based on that. Also, too many os us see a big D or R and check the box.

    So what we have is a bunch of people who don't know what a person's belief system is, voting that same person in and then complaining about something later.
    Hopyard likes this.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  3. #108
    Ex Member Array CharlesMorri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    286

    Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

    Quote Originally Posted by GrandZJ View Post
    If they impose a magazine limit on handguns, what will happen? Will you have to surrender anything above, say, 10 rounds, or are you just banned from bringing them outside your home?
    Depends on who you are and what you respect. Me? I own my hi-cap mags and I have no respect for our current liar in chief. As such, any form of restrictive legislation passed by them to limit my rights will be viewed as unconstitutional and a violation of my rights. Hence, I will not turn in, turn over or give up anything. Period.
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356974756.120860.jpg

    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356975360.963077.jpg

  4. #109
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Quoted from The Declaration of Independence...

    Not "constitutional" of course...

    But was ratified by the states...

    Now this does not specifically spell out exactly how the people will accomplish such an "alter/abolish" action...



    But to myself and many others that action is also "self-evident".

    CharlesMorri and tkruf like this.
    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  5. #110
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,669
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Quite frankly, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to read the Constitution and compare it with current federal functions...and conclude that the two aren't even close. The federal government has dropped the Constitution from its list of concerns in virtually every area. The only amendment I see them taking seriously is the 16th. It is exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when your only focus is on how the government's actions are all legal, and anything we do aside from hitting the ballot box is illegal. Should the transition back out of statism be done peacefully? Absolutely. However, pretending the federal government isn't in blatant violation of the Constitution with almost every activity is just plain ridiculous.
    I'm just completely flabbergasted when I read comments as the above. I'm not going to respond and refute; something
    easily done. Not worth the effort as your mind is clearly made up and won't be swayed.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #111
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,805
    Quote Originally Posted by HDusmc View Post
    I find it amazing that a "VIP member" on this forum would be cowardly enough to honestly suggest that we lay down and allow our rights to be taken from us while our "government" tears the constitution to shreads.
    That's the amazing beauty, and largest weakness, of what makes our country the greatest nation in the free world. We are afforded the right to speak out against whatever we choose. Hop loves to exercise his First Amendment right and uses it to downplay the importance of our Second Amendment right. He has this right without qualification, so even though he is historically inaccurate and bases most of what he says on nothing more than supposition (or propaganda), it remains his right to say. I say it's a weakness because being free to speak out against the very things that keep you free, exposes the dichotomy that must exist for a truly free people to remain so. Censorship of "dangerous" ideas is always the last thing to fall, which then turns a free people into an oppressed people.

    Thankfully there have always been men, and women, that have chosen the a much more difficult path; and that path is the one that protects his rights, irregardless of how he feels about their sacrifice or the measures by which they achieved the rights he enjoys today.
    HDusmc, 1MoreGoodGuy and Doodle like this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  7. #112
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm just completely flabbergasted when I read comments as the above. I'm not going to respond and refute; something
    easily done. Not worth the effort as your mind is clearly made up and won't be swayed.
    Not so easily done. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the Constitution and think about it for a little while. There is no constitutional authority for the drug war, none for the 1934 NFA, none for an EPA that will march onto your land and tell you they've declared it wetlands, and if you keep using it they'll fine you $10,000 a day, no authority for an FDA to come in and tell a terminally ill patient what treatments they will or will not put into their own body. NONE. You go ahead and try to refute it, and if you post ANYTHING other than citing a section of the Constitution that allows for the abuses I just came up with off the top of my head, your argument is finished already. You vastly overestimate your own knowledge, and underestimate the arguments of those who point out how far away from what the Constitution actually authorizes our federal government has strayed. Your constant condescension makes it that much more ridiculous. Pointing out the folly of armed insurrection against our government...you'll get a good deal of sympathy from me. Saying the government currently operates perfectly within the confines of the Constitution is just plain flabbergasting.
    TX expat, Mjr_Fail, tkruf and 3 others like this.

  8. #113
    Member Array HDusmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    That's the amazing beauty, and largest weakness, of what makes our country the greatest nation in the free world. We are afforded the right to speak out against whatever we choose. Hop loves to exercise his First Amendment right and uses it to downplay the importance of our Second Amendment right. He has this right without qualification, so even though he is historically inaccurate and bases most of what he says on nothing more than supposition (or propaganda), it remains his right to say. I say it's a weakness because being free to speak out against the very things that keep you free, exposes the dichotomy that must exist for a truly free people to remain so. Censorship of "dangerous" ideas is always the last thing to fall, which then turns a free people into an oppressed people.

    Thankfully there have always been men, and women, that have chosen the a much more difficult path; and that path is the one that protects his rights, irregardless of how he feels about their sacrifice or the measures by which they achieved the rights he enjoys today.
    I agree, and I would hope that most members here would defend his first amendment right just as vigorously as they would the 2nd amendment.
    TX expat and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.

  9. #114
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,669
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - we have two radically different understandings of reality.

    In your world if:
    - O changed Kennedy or one of the conservative justices out for a Sotomayer/Kagan clone
    - And O declares, under EO, that the 2A no longer applies and everyone must turn in all guns, swords, knives and baseball bats or face imprisonment
    - And if SCOTUS would reinterpret the 2A to mean that only the government can possess guns, which it would if so reconstituted

    This would mean that even if the 2A had not been repealed, disarming the people of the USA would be a perfectly legal act of the federal government.

    In my world, this would not be so. Just sayin.
    K, my dear internet buddy, that post is full of "ifs." We all know the old saying about
    if my grandmother had .......she'd be my grandfather.

    Let's not string a bunch of ifs into a calamity.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #115
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm just completely flabbergasted when I read comments as the above. I'm not going to respond and refute; something
    easily done. Not worth the effort as your mind is clearly made up and won't be swayed.
    Surely you are not truly flabbergasted...

    It's just that some of us are more "spirit of the law" rather than "letter of the law" when it comes to what is legal (constitutionally) or not.

    It should be easy to see where this mindset comes from considering how much judicial activism has taken place over the course of our history...

    As for not refuting because it's easily done... True.

    From a "legal" standpoint you are absolutely correct sir... I could play devils advocate easily as well...

    Look beyond the words on the paper and try to see intent...

    It can be a beautiful sight!

    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  11. #116
    Ex Member Array CharlesMorri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    286

    Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is. That is reality and not fantasy. Everything Congress does is legal and presumed constitutional until
    such time as Federal courts find otherwise. If you don't believe that, you don't really believe in our constitutional
    form of government, so stop complaining about government not following the constitution you don't seem to believe in.
    You (general you, not meaning you as an individual) have no right of rebellion. That is not in our constitution.

    Note, you have a right to peacefully assemble, to petition, and to seek redress of grievances. That
    part of 1A isn't in there by accident. It is the safety valve so many here seem to overlook.
    And to this I say....
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356976597.902909.jpg
    HDusmc and tkruf like this.

  12. #117
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    K, my dear internet buddy, that post is full of "ifs." We all know the old saying about
    if my grandmother had .......she'd be my grandfather.

    Let's not string a bunch of ifs into a calamity.
    Hop - let's examine the what ifs here - there are three.

    1. Changing out Kennedy or one of the conservative justices - this is reasonably likely given the ages of Kennedy and Scalia. It is not a given, but not unreasonable to consider. We have seen the quality of the justices that O puts on the court and there is no reason to doubt the next will be a Sotomayer/Kagan clone.

    2. O declares that all must turn in weapons - true O has not gone past guns, but this is his stated objective towards guns. He has stated it from his earliest positions in politics and recently. I have no doubt that, if he could, he would make such a decree. If he aligns the court, I think he will make that play.

    3. If #1 is completed, there is absolutely no reason to expect that SCOTUS would do anything other than what Kagan and Sotomayer are both on record as saying they would do.

    These were not some far fetched what ifs, these are very much realistic and possible, if not probable, questions to ponder.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  13. #118
    Distinguished Member Array dben002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kernersville NC
    Posts
    1,388
    There are a few here who need to take a Xanax and chill out. There are a few who need to remove your heads from the sand and look around.

    No one is coming for your guns....repeat that until you understand it. ...

    Yes, there may be a change in certain laws that will say you can't be found in possession of certain type weapons, or ammo but that exist now. You will have a very expensive paperweight you can't be caught with so you will just need to keep it hidden but they are not coming for it or you until you use it...

    Some here seem to think they can't survive without massive firepower in their basements....that any weapons restriction is an infringement on there right to bear arms. Well sorry you can't have hand grenades, Rocket launchers, and 50 cal's on the back your jeep wranglers.

    There are limits to all the rights we have...besides, if you're not happy living here you can always move to another country, or Ill......
    Hopyard likes this.
    There are two types of people who carry concealed weapons...Responsible ones and Irresponsible ones...which are you...

  14. #119
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm afraid several of you missed the main point and misconstrued what I wrote. So,let me try again.

    Of course the men who turned out were bearing personally owned firearms. That is indisputable. The point I was making
    is that the decision to have a Revolution against England was a political decision made by the lawful authorities of the various colonies and their representatives sent to Philadelphia. The decision was not made by the people as individuals.

    Government was at work, and government organized the rebellion by raising money, obtaining munitions, arranging for the manufacture of such of arms and ships, floating a Navy of sorts, arranging
    alliances with France, using diplomacy with the Spaniards.

    The American Revolutionary war was quite a different affair from the chaotic anarchistic stuff you see now in Syria, it was organized by government and commanded top down by General Washington on instructions from a Continental Congress.

    Structurally, all those guns in the hands of the hands of private soldiers and in the hands of privateers were under the control of the central government-- the Continental Congress.

    The same occurred for the Civil War. Rebellion was not a bottom up thing. It was top down, led by the state
    governments.

    Many who post here seem to have a fanciful notion that our government is "out of control" and that we need
    a bottom up revolution. That is insanity. It would not work. It is impractical, illegal, and speaking of it is the very
    antithesis of adhering to whatever oath you may have taken (and most of us have) to preserve, protect, and defend,
    the constitution of the United States.
    Hopyard, I think we all understand that. At least I do. And that is all well and good. However, reading the federalist papers, and understanding why the 2nd Amendment was put in place, is to understand that the founding fathers believed it was necessary to provide a provision for free men, to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government. A government which through greed, and corruption at the highest levels overstep their governing authority and became nothing less than tyrants.

    The federalist papers, nor the Constitution says anywhere that we must first form a new governing body which becomes recognized in some quasi legitimate fashion in order to rise up, with arms and rebel against the tyranny the standing government has imposed.

    They understood that "the people," as a body of free individuals, would be able to know when it's time to embark upon such a course. That free men, being free thinkers, who believed in a God, whom has bestowed "unalienable rights" upon them, to make that determination. And they (founding fathers) provided a provision within the Constitution, to allow for such an event.

    And that is what makes America the greatest nation in the land. That is what is unique about America over any other nation in the world. That is what is often referred to as "American Exceptionalism."

    And for the record. I am in no way encouraging such an action. I would hate to see it come to that. It would rock our nations very foundation to the core. It would forever alter the course and foundation of this great nation. The founding fathers knew that. They understood it. And yet, they still wrote a provision which allows us to do it. Because they too, were free men. And free thinkers, who believed in God, and the "unalienable rights" bestowed upon all free men, from God.
    HDusmc and TX expat like this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  15. #120
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
    There are a few here who need to take a Xanax and chill out. There are a few who need to remove your heads from the sand and look around.

    No one is coming for your guns....repeat that until you understand it. ...

    Yes, there may be a change in certain laws that will say you can't be found in possession of certain type weapons, or ammo but that exist now. You will have a very expensive paperweight you can't be caught with so you will just need to keep it hidden but they are not coming for it or you until you use it...

    Some here seem to think they can't survive without massive firepower in their basements....that any weapons restriction is an infringement on there right to bear arms. Well sorry you can't have hand grenades, Rocket launchers, and 50 cal's on the back your jeep wranglers.

    There are limits to all the rights we have...besides, if you're not happy living here you can always move to another country, or Ill......
    I'll chip in on your 1-way ticket.
    CharlesMorri and Doodle like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2013 missouri gun laws
,
2013gunband
,
feds and guns 2013
,
gun laws 2013
,
new firearms for 2013
,
new gun laws in texas 2013
,
new guns for 2013
,
new missouri gun laws 2013
,
new pistols for 2013
,

new texas gun laws 2013

,
proposed federal gun laws 2013
,
second civil war 2013
Click on a term to search for related topics.