President Obama himself knows..........

This is a discussion on President Obama himself knows.......... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; President Obama himself knows what he and the anti-gun organizations/media really want would most likely never happen. Their real agenda is to amend or abolish ...

Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree4Likes
  • 3 Post By Crowman
  • 1 Post By mkh

Thread: President Obama himself knows..........

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761

    President Obama himself knows..........

    President Obama himself knows what he and the anti-gun organizations/media really want would most likely never happen. Their real agenda is to amend or abolish the 2nd amendment. Instead they have been for years whittling away at the amendment in hopes of achieving their real goal. Due to recent events they seized the opportunity to appeal to the senses of law abiding citizens and weapon owners to agree to what they purpose. Some of the tactics they have been using recently have weapon owners going along with them(such as "well you know no one needs an "evil assault" weapon and high capacity magazines who uses it to hunt.") The media is great at forgetting the second part of the amendment. Rather they focus in on the militia language and state there is no longer a need for it which means gun owners don't need weapons anymore.

    (The following is from Meet the Press interview
    The president vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding that he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines.)

    They are also using the "divide and conquer" tactic. Senator Feinstein's proposed bill validates this. With her bill she says if you already own an "evil assault" weapon you can keep it, tells hunters not to worry we won't restrict/ban your weapons. As to her bill, everything in it is unconstitutional and her true objective is to amend or abolish the 2nd amendment. If she was truly concerned she would have ownership and ask that such weapons would forfeited to the government. The 2nd amendment is not about justifying need, use, want it's about our right to keep arms if we so choose no more or no less.

    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.

    Refuting one anti argument that when amendment was written there were no "evil assault" weapons that we have today. While this is obviously true they fail to mention that the writers were not so naive to believe that weapons would not evolve. They used the language they used to address a major concern. To keep and bears meant the arms of the day(whatever year the people would in) that would be needed to ward off a tyrannical government or for self protection. They wanted the people to be able to have the same basic weapons the aggressor would be using hence the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" to prevent the very thing that has been and is still going on in America, "reasonable" gun control laws. The amendment clearly shows they were adamant in wanting to insure the tyranny they endured would never happen to the people in America.


    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,771
    It's not about what weapons may become available.

    It's about the federal government being restricted from disarming the American people.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  4. #3
    mkh
    mkh is offline
    Distinguished Member Array mkh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Foxhole somewhere in Jacksonville
    Posts
    1,603
    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.

    Too many people get hung up on the militia part of that. The wording up to the comma is just the "why". It's the part after the comma that makes up the "law" part of the 2nd Amendment.

    The "why" could be anything that our Founding Fathers wanted to say. It is still clear that the "law" part applies regardless of the "why" or reason they put it in there - they clearly didn't want the government infringing on our rights to own guns.
    TX expat likes this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    President Obama himself knows what he and the anti-gun organizations/media really want would most likely never happen. Their real agenda is to amend or abolish the 2nd amendment.

    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.

    Refuting one anti argument that when amendment was written there were no "evil assault" weapons that we have today. While this is obviously true they fail to mention that the writers were not so naive to believe that weapons would not evolve. They used the language they used to address a major concern. To keep and bears meant the arms of the day(whatever year the people would in) that would be needed to ward off a tyrannical government or for self protection. They wanted the people to be able to have the same basic weapons the aggressor would be using hence the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" to prevent the very thing that has been and is still going on in America, "reasonable" gun control laws. The amendment clearly shows they were adamant in wanting to insure the tyranny they endured would never happen to the people in America.




    ^YEP^^^^^^^^^

    The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons" (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    I just posted this in another thread minutes ago.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

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

gun law bill being proposed by the president
,
president capacity himself
,
second amendment crew operated weaponry
,

shall not be infringed

Click on a term to search for related topics.