Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless.

Bill Clinton managed to skirt around those lack of executive powers to inflict a great number of serious restrictions on gun rights, through threat of lawsuits, trade agreements, and other means.

Give the liberals control of both the House and Senate, and there is no anti-gun Bill that Barack Hussein Obama won't eagerly sign.

He won't do that for the same reason the LW House won't impeach Bush, which they easily could, they don;t want to seem as petty and wasteful as the RW has, and they plan to stay a while. Again, the SCOTUS decision which I think is a stretch, but I love, is real hard to overturn; it would take another SCOTUS decision to do it. Even if congress passed laws, you could flash you Heller card in court and they would be bound to follow it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

In theory.

In practice the president has the most legislative power when his desires aren't too numerous or fall into a number of big spaces where congress has ceded authority. You should be aprehensive about this regardless of what your politics are because the other party is going to get its turn and effectively pass laws you disagree with.

Concur.

Concentration of power in any branch (executive has been the current trend over the last 30 or so years) is of concern to me.

VR/Marg

And I agree, but since the people decided to go so far right, we need to go as long left to regain balance, then go for balance in positions. It's really boom-n-bust, but it's what we have.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Must be some OTHER Lucky that goes on and on about how Bush did this and Bush did that, I suppose....

I was talking Obama in this thread and on that post, just quit jumping in the end of a thread.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

the very recent Heller decision that is totally not in line with objective reasoning of the 2nd

Please explain what you mean by this because it sounds like you disagree with the Heller decision and that would be crazy in light of a very recent thread I sponsored.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

the very recent Heller decision that is totally not in line with objective reasoning of the 2nd

Please explain what you mean by this because it sounds like you disagree with the Heller decision and that would be crazy in light of a very recent thread I sponsored.

I have an answer in my WORD, I am gonn ago back and post that there. Let's not beat it to death here.

I will say that I am the only objective person I know, most cheerlead for their personal position and skew the facts to render the same. I am huge pro-gun, I don;t know what I would do if the gov demanded registration or criminalization. I am a law abider, but really pro-gun ownership. I just think the original writing of the 2nd and first ever interpretation of the same by the Heller decision are a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE stretch.

Intelectually = Heller dec is wrong
Personally = Heller dec is perfect

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

But yeah....I wonder how long it will be before Obama attempts to make CA gun laws national.

CA laws would be much more acceptable than IL laws. Essentially it would be a renewal of the '94 Assault Rifle ban, and the prohibition of new regular capacity mags.

However, the national scene is not the same as the state he's from, which is very hostile to gun ownership. He'll make little traction in DC on the subject, and given the challenge of reelection in 2012 (for either candidate if they win), I'd be surprised if he wanted any part of the subject.

Yep the 94 Assault Weapon Ban cost the democrats quite a bit and was a major reason the republicans gained majority. Hopefully Obama is smart enough to have learned that lesson but I have my doubts.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I am gonn ago back and post that there. Let's not beat it to death here

I look forward to reading your objectivity.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

You are the only objective person you know?


hmmmm

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You are the only objective person you know?


hmmmm

Yep, all others I've met cheerlead for their position and build arguments around them rather than to clean the slate and use objective data. Esp with guns, I'm more pro than most of these pseudo Republicans that are really confused Libertarians many of them, but I can understand that the 2nd is really unclear at best. As for the 4th, what is unreasonable? What did they mean and how do we interpret it today? Understanding that the US Const is meaningless other than a document to usually misconstrue in order to win a debate or in the case of justices, to justify a decision via their law clerk.

Point is, I can look outside of my wishes and create arguments, even if I don't like the result. This is why I have been able to adjust my politics and many things that are opinion-based, unlike most ideologues and others drivien by family rule or other rigid fallacy.

[kelpdiver 2]

funny stuff

[DFWAJG 4]

Quote

Quote

Isn't that the thought process that an armed population could stop a rogue government?

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force.

I don't know about that quade. Looking back at 9/11, the terrorists didn't need bombs or guns to cause massive destruction.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Isn't that the thought process that an armed population could stop a rogue government?

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force.

I don't know about that quade. Looking back at 9/11, the terrorists didn't need bombs or guns to cause massive destruction.

They used ou ignorance and arrogance as their best weapon. As for a modern-day internal uprising, it could happen successfully, but you could never organize it, therefore it wouldn't happen / won't happen. If you get 2 guys together with slingshots and a plan to overthrow, the FBI is there so quickly and they will fabricate what they need to / if they need to. If that ever happened, Kent state would like like a picnic.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

You are the only objective person you know?


hmmmm

Yep, all others I've met cheerlead for their position and build arguments around them rather than to clean the slate and use objective data. Esp with guns, I'm more pro than most of these pseudo Republicans that are really confused Libertarians many of them, but I can understand that the 2nd is really unclear at best. As for the 4th, what is unreasonable? What did they mean and how do we interpret it today? Understanding that the US Const is meaningless other than a document to usually misconstrue in order to win a debate or in the case of justices, to justify a decision via their law clerk.

Point is, I can look outside of my wishes and create arguments, even if I don't like the result. This is why I have been able to adjust my politics and many things that are opinion-based, unlike most ideologues and others drivien by family rule or other rigid fallacy.

Wait.....you just said the heller decision is wrong. Which means you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias....correct? Forget your objectivity or lack there of....show us some data that supports your position. Challenge the Heller decision since you think it's wrong. Show us the fucking money.

And if you noticed in the other thread I said you were right about the term 'well regulated' based on findings going back to the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. And you want to say you don't know anyone objective....pfft.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Isn't that the thought process that an armed population could stop a rogue government?

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force.

I don't know about that quade. Looking back at 9/11, the terrorists didn't need bombs or guns to cause massive destruction.

The government could not possibly quell an armed public uprising.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>Wait.....you just said the heller decision is wrong.

I wrote:


I just think the original writing of the 2nd and first ever interpretation of the same by the Heller decision are a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE stretch.

Intelectually = Heller dec is wrong
Personally = Heller dec is perfect



In short, I wrote it was wrong, more correctly I wrote that it is a stretch. SCOTUS decisions are opinions, and like opinions, they aren't really right or wrong, just opinions of that day which can and do flip-flop thru time.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Which means you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias....correct? Forget your objectivity or lack there of....show us some data that supports your position.


OK, let me finish the WORD doc and I will post in the other thread. Also, data really isn't used in regard to SCOTUS decisions, which is why they call it an opinion. But I will illustrate why I think it is a stretch of interpretation of the 2nd, on ethat hasn't been made for the first 220 some years. And one that go the way of the Edsel as quickly. I don;t care what language you use, but most decisions I've read don't get into that postion, they use language like, "the lower court erred when..." Or, "the legislative intent was...."

Becuase you've probably always had the opinion that teh 2nd bestows the right to persoanlly own a pistol, so if we use right/wrong then you've been wrong all your life until a month ago when Heller came out, and you now you're right, then you'll go back to being wrong if Obama appoints a few libs and Heller is tested and rejected in another subsequent case, now you're back to being wrong. It's an interpretation of a 200+ year old document that was vagely written, there really is no right/wrong.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you noticed in the other thread I said you were right about the term 'well regulated' based on findings going back to the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. And you want to say you don't know anyone objective....pfft.


I don't recall you agreeing with me on that. If you did then you agree that well regulated means well controlled in the sense of registration, tracking, etc. As well, I did say that I am the only objective person I know, I really don't know anyine in here, so I wasn't including people in here. W/o meeting people and 'knowing' them for a while, you can't really know anyone.

Let me get to that other thread and we'll keep it consolidated there.

Cheers

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Isn't that the thought process that an armed population could stop a rogue government?

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force.

I don't know about that quade. Looking back at 9/11, the terrorists didn't need bombs or guns to cause massive destruction.

The government could not possibly quell an armed public uprising.

If it were organized and sponateous, you can't get 10 people on the same page with an RW jump sometimes, think you can organize several hundred thousand? Now if the gov became so tyrannical that they were pulling people into the streets and executing them, and word got out, then people would fall into concert with that alone. But to organize even 100 people? Never happen and it would take far more than that to do anything. Nah, there will never be an uprising from within and there should not be, we will just uprise politically and vote .

[downwardspiral 0]

As a populous we'd definitely need a reason but I used Tianamen Square as an example since that was an unarmed uprising that lasted several weeks and ended up with the Chinese Army massacring thousands.

If that happened here you'd see a lot of civilian guns come out and a lot of deserters.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

If it were organized and sponateous, you can't get 10 people on the same page with an RW jump sometimes, think you can organize several hundred thousand?

You don't have to. An unorganized resistance consisting of less than 1 in 1500 out of an otherwise non-combatant population is enough to prevent a military victory.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

As a populous we'd definitely need a reason but I used Tianamen Square as an example since that was an unarmed uprising that lasted several weeks and ended up with the Chinese Army massacring thousands.

If that happened here you'd see a lot of civilian guns come out and a lot of deserters.

Yea, those Chinese really showed their government, huh? Not saying they were wrong with that, as teh Chinese gov is oppressive. Of course we did have a version of that here, called Kent State. The Guard soldiers did shoot on college kids protesting, I guess the diff was that everyone stoped and asked, "WTF did we just do?" I doubt that would be the case now tho, I think Uncle Sam's trained killers would take of 'bidness.'

>>>>>>>>>If that happened here you'd see a lot of civilian guns come out and a lot of deserters.



You have more faith than I do. I think teh soldiers would not deset or turn. It would take a lot before people would uprise, I think people would think, 'ok, civility will onset any time now.' Unless the gov was litterally yanking people out into the streets would the people uprise and the gov would not operate like that, even if theyt wanted to register/enslave us all, they would be more tactical. Basically, if you don't liek it or fear the US gov, just leave. I say that not in vex, just as a matter of fact. I don't see a physically tyrannical government, just a fiscal one..... that is, unless that terrorist Obama is elected, then it's Marshall Law January 21st.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If it were organized and sponateous, you can't get 10 people on the same page with an RW jump sometimes, think you can organize several hundred thousand?

You don't have to. An unorganized resistance consisting of less than 1 in 1500 out of an otherwise non-combatant population is enough to prevent a military victory.

Nah, they would just "cleanse" an area at a time until all resistance was gone. Ever see Logan's Run? Just like that you runner! (joke).

The last time the gov got tyrannical was probably during WWII with Japanese-American Internment, and I didn't read about any resistance. Of course that was 1 sector of US society, but I just don't see the US gov operating that way.

The only way an uprising or overthrowing of the US gov could work would be to have 100 or so well-trained commando types that could also blend in. They would have to have a command central, non-interceptable communications, massive C-40 and other high tech stuff, millions in backing, etc... It would have to be that insane, other that that, never happen. 911 was pathetic, fortunately, and it was a one-time shot, won't happen again with our now security. It's possible a plant could be bought inside the airline with a ramp service worker and sneak someone or something on, but I just don;t see it.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If it were organized and sponateous, you can't get 10 people on the same page with an RW jump sometimes, think you can organize several hundred thousand?

You don't have to. An unorganized resistance consisting of less than 1 in 1500 out of an otherwise non-combatant population is enough to prevent a military victory.

Nah, they would just "cleanse" an area at a time until all resistance was gone. Ever see Logan's Run? Just like that you runner! (joke).

The last time the gov got tyrannical was probably during WWII with Japanese-American Internment, and I didn't read about any resistance. Of course that was 1 sector of US society, but I just don't see the US gov operating that way.

The only way an uprising or overthrowing of the US gov could work would be to have 100 or so well-trained commando types that could also blend in. They would have to have a command central, non-interceptable communications, massive C-40 and other high tech stuff, millions in backing, etc... It would have to be that insane, other that that, never happen. 911 was pathetic, fortunately, and it was a one-time shot, won't happen again with our now security. It's possible a plant could be bought inside the airline with a ramp service worker and sneak someone or something on, but I just don;t see it.

OK General Lucky

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The last time the gov got tyrannical was probably during WWII with Japanese-American Internment, and I didn't read about any resistance. Of course that was 1 sector of US society, but I just don't see the US gov operating that way.

Japanese Americans were a minority, and easily identifiable in a sea of white people. It's hardly comparable to any situation now.

Beijing's example doesn't prove much either - we know an unarmed resistance failed hard in China, but it worked in India.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The last time the gov got tyrannical was probably during WWII with Japanese-American Internment, and I didn't read about any resistance.

Disagree. Liddy**, Magruder, Mitchell, Haldeman, Erlichman, Nixon et al. did a pretty good job at subverting the Constitution back in 1972-4, and then there's imprisonment without trial, torture, etc. since 9/11.

And in case you forgot who Liddy is:

Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character":

His [McCain's] campaign officials said Liddy's character will appeal to many voters because he was following orders from President Nixon and kept silent afterward.

"His (Liddy's) judgment might be in question, but I don't think his character is," said Ed Walker, the York County chairman of McCain's campaign. "He was following orders just like any good soldier, and he didn't tell on anybody. He felt like he was on a mission and kept his silence."


Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."



—J.S.
*Media Matters

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites