U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2009, 09:10 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungeon View Post
If Washington was president, don't you think he would have put it in the constitution that no one should carry a gun near him? Obama is a communist and wants to take away all the rights from the white man to emasculate them. If it were up to Obama all white people would sit in the back of the bus next to his grandma and crazy pastor. Obama is just making up new laws that no one ever heard of because thats what communist do they don't care about our constituiton. If we keep changing the constitution then in 100 years there won't even be an America, It will be the USSA
Scuze me, but Title 18 of the US Law Codes, the laws governing the Secret Service and their role in protecting our nation's leaders and visiting dignataries, has been on the books for many, many decades and have protected POTUSES both Republican and Democrat.

This isn't an "Obama thing".

And thank you for showing the class your true objections to the current POTUS.

Most rational people don't like him for his policies, not his race. That's the reason I wrote in Ron Paul on my ballot, I didn't care for some of Obama's policies.

The relevant Law Code...

US CODE: Title 18,3056. Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service

 
Old 08-19-2009, 09:23 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungeon View Post
I know one of the top of my head, that president assassinated william mc kinely was assassinated by a polish guy who had the right to legally have a gun at the time.
President William McKinley (at least spell it right) was shot on Sept. 6th 1901 on the steps of the Temple of Music at the 1901 Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo, NY (my boyhood home), at 4:07 pm. He succumbed to complications on Sept. 14th.

The man who shot him was named Leon Frank Czolgosz, Mr. Czolgosz was born and bred in Alpena, Michigan,to polish immigrants certainly, but he, himself, was a full blodded American citizen.

He claimed he purchased his weapon, a .32 caliber Ivey-Johnson for around 4 bucks. However, for this debate, it should be noted that NO gun laws had been enacted in Buffalo at that time. The first C&C gun laws in NYS were not passed until 1911, the "Sullivan Act" in New York City.

So while your statement of "he shot McKinley with a legal handgun (sic)" are correct, the spirit of your statement is not.
 
Old 08-19-2009, 11:41 PM
 
261 posts, read 584,325 times
Reputation: 96
He was polish when he shot the president, because he sure as hell wasn't american.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Feel free to substantiate.
I thought the assassinations and attempted assassinations of our presidents was pretty widely known and would not require links. You've heard about Lincoln and Kennedy, right? Just say no, and I'll post the links about the presidential assassinations, but I didn't think it would be necessary. The second amendment gives every single one of the assassins the right to bear arms. However, Hinckley and Fromme likely would have been denied a handgun purchase permit. Defenders of the second amendment have been carrying loaded weapons into venues of town meetings in recent days, and their right to so has not been seriously challenged.

Second Amendment defenders correctly state that any "law abiding" person has a right to carry a loaded gun into a room where the president is present. They are law abiding up until the time they pull the trigger, as were all the historical assassins and would-be assassins. John Wilkes Booth was a "law abiding" citizen until he pulled the trigger, and you would have been there vigorously defending his right to carry a loaded weapon. Until he pulled the trigger, when it would have been too late for you to say Oh, wait, he's not a law abiding citizen any more.

If you disagree that there have been ten attempted assassination attempts with firearms on nine presidents, please feel free to substantiate the inauthenticity of those historical accounts.

I wouldn't make any accusation, but I have the sneaking feeling that many gun-nuts want guns to become so commonplace at such venues, that Obama is fairly certain to be shot by somebody and the secret service would be helpless to prevent it.

Do a little creative speculation and ask yourself this. If you wanted to shoot the president, how would you "sneak" a gun into the room? Do you secretly hope somebody does? Is this the plan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungeon View Post
He was polish when he shot the president, because he sure as hell wasn't american.
Leon Czolgosz was a native-born American, born in Alpena, Michigan, and would have no trouble proving to birthers that he was eligible to serve as president of the United States.

Last edited by jtur88; 08-20-2009 at 12:44 AM..
 
Old 08-20-2009, 12:26 AM
 
549 posts, read 515,802 times
Reputation: 851
A total gun ban would not only be unconstitutional but would cause the biggest revolt since the civil war.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 09:38 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
"While we certainly have a right to own firearms, the g'ment still has the right to limit and legislate."
Don't you think that if thats what george washington wanted he would have put right in the constitution, the government has the right to strip us of all the rights we are given in the first place for no good reason. Thats just silly. If the founding fathers never wanted us to own blundbust, artillery and canons they would have put you have the right to own a gun except zyx.

"Local, State, and even Federal level g'ments can still mandate C&C licensing, registration, limits on caliber and magazine capacity, etc. Obtaining special permits even allows one to own military grade firearms as well."
I don't believe they have any of these powers but use legal tricks to do so. The purpose of the right to bear arms is to keep the government from being a dictator. Trust me, when the communist on capitol hill try to force healthcare and al gore energy down your throat, the first people we need are the crazy criminals like charles manson to start the war of liberartion against the tyranical government.If we only have the right to own pistols and not missle launchers and aka, and artillery, it takes away our right as citizens to collectively form well armed militias.

"BTW, criminals, those that haven't been convicted (yet) have every right as a citizen to legally obtain firearms and the neccessary registrations and licensing."
Well the criminals who have sevred there time in prison have paid there debt to society and have no reason to be debarred of their rights. We need gun totting criminals come obamacare.

" The insane simply do not retain that right or several other rights (BTW, in that period of our history, the insane were thrown into bedlams and not allowed to roam free), nor do convicted criminals who, through their actions, have voluntarily given up many rights."
They have a name for people like you, its called racist. Youa re being racist towards the handicap and mentally challeneged. Youa re saying that a guy with retarddation for no fault of his own should die under obama's death panel. You know what it is called when you don't hire a handicap guy because he is handicap, discrimination. You sir are discriminating against handicap people and that just mean.
If the founding fathers never wanted handicap people to own guns they would have just written in a clause that says all citizen's except handicap and cripple people, and criminal pass people have the right to have a gun. Most veterans were criminals back in the day, as it was a way to get off death row.

"Just as there isn't any absolute "free speech", there is no absolute right to own whatever weapons you wish, whenever you wish. For example, you have no inherent right to preach on private property, whether political or religious, nor do you have an inherent right to carry a firearm on private property without the express permission of the property owner as well."
well you can't own a nuke, but there i no reason why you can't own a fighter plane provided your rich enough to buy your own air port and bombing range.

"You also have no inherent right to carry a firearm on public property while in the presence of the POTUS, judges, congressmen, or other high profile public figures. While we have a right to own firearms, their safety trumps any right to carry in their presence.
I agree with most of what you say.
But I dont see how the president being somewhere makes MY life less important or how his life is any more important. He is just a man, if its safe enough for me to be unarmed then its safe enough for him. If however its so dangerous that he needs a small army it seems ridiculous to say that a citizen should surrender his/her right to self defense.

the right preserved is to Keep & Bear arms. Bear means carry. If that makes a president, judge or anybody else nervous they shouldn't be in office here.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 12:19 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I thought the assassinations and attempted assassinations of our presidents was pretty widely known and would not require links. You've heard about Lincoln and Kennedy, right? Just say no, and I'll post the links about the presidential assassinations, but I didn't think it would be necessary. The second amendment gives every single one of the assassins the right to bear arms. However, Hinckley and Fromme likely would have been denied a handgun purchase permit. Defenders of the second amendment have been carrying loaded weapons into venues of town meetings in recent days, and their right to so has not been seriously challenged.

Second Amendment defenders correctly state that any "law abiding" person has a right to carry a loaded gun into a room where the president is present. They are law abiding up until the time they pull the trigger, as were all the historical assassins and would-be assassins. John Wilkes Booth was a "law abiding" citizen until he pulled the trigger, and you would have been there vigorously defending his right to carry a loaded weapon. Until he pulled the trigger, when it would have been too late for you to say Oh, wait, he's not a law abiding citizen any more.

If you disagree that there have been ten attempted assassination attempts with firearms on nine presidents, please feel free to substantiate the inauthenticity of those historical accounts.

I wouldn't make any accusation, but I have the sneaking feeling that many gun-nuts want guns to become so commonplace at such venues, that Obama is fairly certain to be shot by somebody and the secret service would be helpless to prevent it.

Do a little creative speculation and ask yourself this. If you wanted to shoot the president, how would you "sneak" a gun into the room? Do you secretly hope somebody does? Is this the plan?
Firstly, one cannot use examples from periods prior to gun control legislation. Criminals and even the insane (those not tossed into a bedlam) could easily obtain firearms from anywhere. This is what I meant by asking you to clarify yourself, WHICH assassinations and attempts you were referencing.

Secondly, some people do misuse and abuse Constitutional Rights, such as Rush Limbaugh and Free Speech. This in no manner should infringe on those that DO utilize their Rights in a proper manner. Shall we all loose our Free Speech rights because Oxycotin Boy couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it? A law abiding citzen is no longer a law abiding citizen if they committ a crime, whether a five-fingered discount at the department store, or using their legally obtained and previously legally carried firearm in a crime. That previously law abiding citizen has now become a criminal and will loose their right to own/carry a firearm.

People who are already criminals do not rely on aquiring firearms legally. They either aquire them out of the proverbial trunk-of-a-chevy-in-an-alley, or cross state lines and aquire them fraudulently. By FAR, illegal firearms are used by criminals in more crimes than legally aquired/owned firearms used by previously law abiding citizens.

Lastly, anti-gun proponents are simply going to HAVE to realize that they cannot do away with a basic Constitutional Right. Instead, anti-gun people should be looking for ways to standardize licensing and registration across the nation. This would eliminate people who could not normally purchase a firearm legally from going across state lines to purchase a firearm under fraudlent means, for example.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 12:27 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
I agree with most of what you say.
But I dont see how the president being somewhere makes MY life less important or how his life is any more important. He is just a man, if its safe enough for me to be unarmed then its safe enough for him. If however its so dangerous that he needs a small army it seems ridiculous to say that a citizen should surrender his/her right to self defense.

the right preserved is to Keep & Bear arms. Bear means carry. If that makes a president, judge or anybody else nervous they shouldn't be in office here.
Firstly, what do you think would happen if the POTUS were assassinated by a foriegn power or terrorist group, or even a US Citizen, in this day and age?

Do you REALLY want Biden as POTUS, or heavens forbid, Nancy Pelosi if Biden was involved in the same incident?

The POTUS is the figurehead of this Nation, no matter what party he might belong to. He is also a vey high profile target as well.

To preserve continuity, I am more than willing to let tax revenue go towards upholding laws in place since the 1950's (if I recall correctly) that protects not only ourt POTUS, but international dignitaries as well.

Imagine the international crisis if Saudi royalty were assassignated!

If you are that concerned with your personal safety, in a crowd of secret service and local cops mind you, that you do not wish to leave your firearm at home, don't go.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Arguing with you is like arguing with the dining room table, but Im going to try once more to make the only point I have any intenition of trying to make, regardless of what you try turn it into.

If a man shows up at a presidential event wearing a loaded handgun in a leather holster on his hip, the fact that he was a law abiding gun owner at two o'clock is no assurance that he will not be an assassin at 2:30. If a thousand such "law abiding" citizens show up with a loaded gun, the possibility significantly increases that one of them will suddenly turn out to be less law abiding than you promised he was. Besides Fromme and Hinckley, the other eight people who tried to put rounds into a president were "law abiding" citizens the previous day, and would have had the same right to pack heat in 1865 that they have in 2009, gun control legislation notwithstanding.

Every one of them had a right to be there, armed, and still do, according to the defenders of the guns-in-the-town-meeting movement.

I ask you again----if an intended assassin wants to walk up to the president carrying a loaded gun, shouldn't he at least be required to try to hide it? Have you considered the hugely increased possibliity that an intended assassin today (after the news coverage that you gun-nuts wallow in) might carry an assult weapon with a full magazine and extra clips, unchallenged, into any venue with a potential assassination target present? Just as long as he looks like a law-abiding citizen---you know, crew-cut, US flag lapel pin, holier-than-thou attitude, soldier of fortune beret.. What happens then wouldn't be your fault, would it, you're just upholding the constitution.

Last edited by jtur88; 08-20-2009 at 01:00 PM..
 
Old 08-20-2009, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,357,433 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Arguing with you is like arguing with the dining room table, but Im going to try once more to make the only point I have any intenition of trying to make, regardless of what you try turn it into.

If a man shows up at a presidential event wearing a loaded handgun in a leather holster on his hip, the fact that he was a law abiding gun owner at two o'clock is no assurance that he will not be an assassin at 2:30. If a thousand such "law abiding" citizens show up with a loaded gun, the possibility significantly increases that one of them will suddenly turn out to be less law abiding than you asserted he was. Besides Fromme and Hinckley, the other eight people who tried to put rounds into a president were "law abiding" citizens the previous day.

Every one of them had a right to be there, armed, according to the defenders of the guns-in-the-town-meeting movement.

I ask you again----if an intended assassin wants to walk up to the president carrying a loaded gun, shouldn't he at least be required to try to hide it?
MANY showed up with weapons Monday. Did anyone pull their weapon? No. Were any threats made? No

No one threatened the president - The Secret Service took no action

Much to do about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, IS BEING MADE BY THOSE ON THE LEFT
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top