Gun control is consistent with the Second Amendment

Posted in the London Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
hehe

Mount Vernon, KY

#1 Jan 16, 2013
Quick draw Republicans in Congress, intent on stopping any gun-control proposal from the Obama White House, are way off target when they accuse the president of violating gun ownership rights under the Constitution.

Gun control is completely consistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And President Obama is on target with the great American tradition of proposing gun control laws for Congressional approval as well as by issuing executive orders on gun control.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/wha...

hehe
Gun Control IS constitutional... don't believe me ? Believe FOXNEWS hahahaha
Sportsman

Somerset, KY

#2 Jan 16, 2013
I have had a gun since I was 15, and have hunted for over 40 years. I listened to Obama and found his proposals reasonable. No one, except the police or military, need assault weapons and large capacity magazines. I also see no reason why everyone purchasing a gun should not be checked. Everyone qualified can still buy a gun or guns. In short, considering over 30,000 Americans are killed by guns
each year in this country, I favor Obama's proposals. If these proposals just save a few lives, its worth it. The elimination of huge magazines could save many lives.
Patriot

Somerset, KY

#3 Jan 16, 2013
Sportsman wrote:
I have had a gun since I was 15, and have hunted for over 40 years. I listened to Obama and found his proposals reasonable. No one, except the police or military, need assault weapons and large capacity magazines. I also see no reason why everyone purchasing a gun should not be checked. Everyone qualified can still buy a gun or guns. In short, considering over 30,000 Americans are killed by guns
each year in this country, I favor Obama's proposals. If these proposals just save a few lives, its worth it. The elimination of huge magazines could save many lives.
Please before your next post fill out the Form #4473. I will then submit a check to a national database for a background check and if you "qualify" you may then submit your opinion.

Not restrictive at all. Please obey unless you are like everyone else, you only obey the laws you agree with?
NITpick

London, KY

#4 Jan 16, 2013
The second amendment says "well regulated"
case closed.
Umm

Williamsburg, KY

#5 Jan 16, 2013
NITpick wrote:
The second amendment says "well regulated"
case closed.
"shall not be infringed", thats a lot more than don't fu with me.
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#6 Jan 16, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Please before your next post fill out the Form #4473. I will then submit a check to a national database for a background check and if you "qualify" you may then submit your opinion.
Not restrictive at all. Please obey unless you are like everyone else, you only obey the laws you agree with?
Good point! And, I'm not so sure he "needed" to make such a long post. Doesn't he know the freedoms in the 1st Amendment are based on "need" like he thinks they are in the 2nd Amendment?
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#7 Jan 16, 2013
NITpick wrote:
The second amendment says "well regulated"
case closed.
Do you know how to read a Supreme Court decision? That case was really closed and they said you're FOS.
Patriot

Somerset, KY

#8 Jan 17, 2013
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point! And, I'm not so sure he "needed" to make such a long post. Doesn't he know the freedoms in the 1st Amendment are based on "need" like he thinks they are in the 2nd Amendment?
WillyP, these folks have been herded through the union controled education system. None have been taught "true real" History or Government. I know if I were a Language teacher I would use the Second Amendment to teach them the power of a comma.

The Second Amendment was DEMANDED in one form or another by all 13 signers. The first part only explains the need for the second part. In plain english, "I know we just had to overthrow a large "STANDING ARMY." I know Large Army scares all of us. So we will call it a less menacing name, "Well Regulated Militia." Because we will have to have some means to resist tyranny of this Well Regulated Militia, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

In case gun grabbers decide they want to take our freedoms.
But

Winchester, KY

#9 Jan 17, 2013
Sportsman wrote:
I have had a gun since I was 15, and have hunted for over 40 years. I listened to Obama and found his proposals reasonable. No one, except the police or military, need assault weapons and large capacity magazines. I also see no reason why everyone purchasing a gun should not be checked. Everyone qualified can still buy a gun or guns. In short, considering over 30,000 Americans are killed by guns
each year in this country, I favor Obama's proposals. If these proposals just save a few lives, its worth it. The elimination of huge magazines could save many lives.
But would any of Obama's proposals have prevented the Newtown murders?
ReallyIII

Houston, TX

#11 Jan 17, 2013
Sportsman wrote:
I have had a gun since I was 15, and have hunted for over 40 years. I listened to Obama and found his proposals reasonable. No one, except the police or military, need assault weapons and large capacity magazines. I also see no reason why everyone purchasing a gun should not be checked. Everyone qualified can still buy a gun or guns. In short, considering over 30,000 Americans are killed by guns
each year in this country, I favor Obama's proposals. If these proposals just save a few lives, its worth it. The elimination of huge magazines could save many lives.
18,000 of the 30,000 were people who committed suicide, of the other 12,000 that are left 9,000 were Coons killing other Coons. The 3,000 left is Gun Crime.

These statistics are easy to check out on the CDC web Site.
Patriot

Somerset, KY

#12 Jan 17, 2013
I remember when the anti-gun crowd was using our soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanastan in their "studies."

Since Chicago has produced more deaths than either theatre of military operations, it would appear "Strictest standing gun laws" cause more crime? Every study I have read supports that conclusion.

428 saved by guns at Sandy Hook.

They didn't call Obama when the shooter entered the building. They called MEN with GUNS.
Sportsman

Somerset, KY

#13 Jan 17, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Please before your next post fill out the Form #4473. I will then submit a check to a national database for a background check and if you "qualify" you may then submit your opinion.
Not restrictive at all. Please obey unless you are like everyone else, you only obey the laws you agree with?
I recently purchased a gun from a dealer and had to be checked. I passed so you don't have to assist me. I see nothing wrong with everyone being checks. If you have no problem, its not an issue and if you do, you don't need a gun.
capt caveman

Madisonville, KY

#14 Jan 17, 2013
people you better open them eyes if the gov said come jump off this cliff because it will make things safer you go not i this gun ban will not stop nothing besause if there is money to be made someone will find a way to supply it look at all the years and billons spent on stopping drugs now hows that big plan worked not to good look at new yorks big plan they beleave the bad guys will obey the law crime will go thur the roof if the follow their plan the are call crimnals for a reason they break the law it has nothing to do with what type weapon is used its the person making that gun do it and be big if your against one gun then your against them all there all just guns any way you look at it deal with the people and the guns wont be a problem
capt caveman

Madisonville, KY

#15 Jan 17, 2013
Patriot wrote:
I remember when the anti-gun crowd was using our soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanastan in their "studies."
Since Chicago has produced more deaths than either theatre of military operations, it would appear "Strictest standing gun laws" cause more crime? Every study I have read supports that conclusion.
428 saved by guns at Sandy Hook.
They didn't call Obama when the shooter entered the building. They called MEN with GUNS.
it good to see not ever one has been brainwashed by the media and still uses common sense thumbs up freind
NITpickier

London, KY

#16 Jan 17, 2013
NITpick wrote:
The second amendment says "well regulated"
case closed.
Not exactly. The second amendment says "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." Now believe it or not the placement of the commas mean something but the question is what.

Does the second amendment essentially say that since we need a well regulated militia people can bear arms for the purpose of being the militia. That might be it. Or is it saying look you've got to have an armed militia to keep the country free but if the people who are not part of the militia do not have arms, then the militia will be in position to take over the country at any time. We've all seen military coups. So, was the second amendment just a way of allowing people to protect themselves against their own government? Before you dismiss that consider the framers' background. The Supreme Court has always upheld the second amendment but that's all they do. They do not write law. However, if you read the decisions you will easily see that the Supreme Court does not preclude the private ownership of any type of weapon that may have a military and protective benefit. States decide that part.
Patrtiot

Somerset, KY

#17 Jan 17, 2013
Sportsman wrote:
<quoted text>
I recently purchased a gun from a dealer and had to be checked. I passed so you don't have to assist me. I see nothing wrong with everyone being checks. If you have no problem, its not an issue and if you do, you don't need a gun.
"Precedent" in law is very important. Set this precedent and your next "opinion" how misguided it may be, may require permission from the government.

Not at all stopping it, just slowing it down a little. That's okie dokie with you, right?

Please join the anti-gunners we don't need wishy washy liberals.

Hey, Vlad. The politburo is calling.
Ready to play

Greenbrier, AR

#18 Jan 17, 2013
So that citizens can protect themselves from it's own government is exactly what the 2nd amendment was written in for. Our forefathers had just done that very thing. The Constitution was drawn up to keep a king or dictatorship out of their new country. States are supposed to be in control of these laws by the peoples votes so why is one man making decisions for all of us. What has been proposed with education on fire arms is a good idea. I don't have a problem with better background checks but I am afraid that this will only be a start. There is no need for a hunter to have a 30 round mag but that can be solved by a reload in 2 seconds for people that want to commit these mass murders. They will never be stopped as long as there is evil in the world. Criminals will not adhere to these laws and Obama is trying to take away our right to protect our families. That is your "plain and simple"!!!!
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#19 Jan 17, 2013
Sportsman wrote:
<quoted text>
I recently purchased a gun from a dealer and had to be checked. I passed so you don't have to assist me. I see nothing wrong with everyone being checks. If you have no problem, its not an issue and if you do, you don't need a gun.
You got it all wrong! You jumped through hoops to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. You haven't even started to get approval to exercise a right to express your opinion on Topix under the 1st Amendment. You DO believe in equal rights regardless of which Amendment they're guaranteed by, don't you?
No First Amendment Rights

London, KY

#20 Jan 17, 2013
Forums such as Topix are privately owned and not subject to the First Amendment right to free speech or there would be no deletion of an offending post. The First Amendment in regard to freedom of speech is actually very limited. It's also regulated. You can't libel or slander someone. We all know that shouting "fire" in a theater is illegal. So, you do jump through hoops for all your rights, you've just never stopped running your mouth long enough to realize it.
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#21 Jan 17, 2013
No First Amendment Rights wrote:
Forums such as Topix are privately owned and not subject to the First Amendment right to free speech or there would be no deletion of an offending post. The First Amendment in regard to freedom of speech is actually very limited. It's also regulated. You can't libel or slander someone. We all know that shouting "fire" in a theater is illegal. So, you do jump through hoops for all your rights, you've just never stopped running your mouth long enough to realize it.
So you don't believe Obama could shut down Topix with the same 'Executive Authority" he's using to shut down gun ownership?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

London Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
School Tomorrow 1 hr RandomOfLondon 2
no such thing as a friends (Oct '08) 1 hr talk behind my ba... 138
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 2 hr Becky 134,361
i just moved to london where do i go to find a ... 3 hr just off 192 1
good place to have sex (Oct '08) 3 hr Tonie 72
is there bullying in laurel county schools (Apr '12) 6 hr Lisa Rollins 44
Good Dentist? 10 hr Gagme 3

Flood Warning for Laurel County was issued at March 05 at 12:39AM EST

London Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

London People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:11 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:11PM
Titans Release Bernard Pollard
NFL 4:12 PM
Titans to release safety Bernard Pollard
NFL 6:04 AM
Bernard Pollard thinks Titans need winning attitude
NBC Sports 8:28 PM
Reports: Ted Ginn visiting Titans, 49ers
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets