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.
You forgot the first part. Might want to look it up and explain it. Or, if you can't see it in your version, ask and I shall oblige.
Since you referenced the first part, I assumed you would recognize that I was picking up with the right they were outlining by offering the first part as the rationale. Sorry if I was wrong in my assumption.
Ooops - forgot this part - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
It seems that they were suggesting that the militia be regulated, not necessarily the arms.
If you look at a dictionary from the mid 1700's, regulated means "well exercised" or "regular" and not "controlled" like we use regulated today.
Same with the commerce clause that is constantly abused. The only time the federal government has the power to step in and make laws covering businesses is when one state is impeding trade with another (ie tariffs). The power is to regulate is to make regular or stop impediments to commerce.
First of all, Obama has not even said one thing about taking guns away the whole time he has been in office. second of all, if anyone tried to take all guns away, it goes against the 2nd amendment and would be taken to court and third, I do not know anyone that wants all guns taken away. if anything, we just want gun law reform meaning things like backround checks when buying a gun or taking fingerprints or something, NOT taking all guns away.
Obama was on record as IL state senator as supporting a ban on all semi-autos. He may not have reiterated that 'the whole time he has been in office,' but neither has he said that he has changed his position. So we have to assume that he still favors a semi-auto ban.
It's tough to understate what an extreme position this is. Semi autos are are now probably the most common kind of gun in both handguns and rifles (by far in the case of handguns). The analogy isn't perfect, but it's as if an anti-car president called for a ban on all cars with auto transmissions. Suddenly most cars, including probably the one in your driveway, are illegal. And presumably, to make the ban effective, existing cars would have to be confiscated and crushed.
Conservatives seem to have a congenital need to fear something. Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of seeing COMMIES! under every bed and behind every bush they've been searching for new things to fear.
Is you head that far in the sand?
Haven't you read anything on these post about how afraid the left is of Romney, Santorum and Newt?
Since you referenced the first part, I assumed you would recognize that I was picking up with the right they were outlining by offering the first part as the rationale. Sorry if I was wrong in my assumption.
You were wrong in ignoring the first part. As for the assumption, you were wrong with the premise of it. There was a reason to bringing up the first part... now THAT would be the correct premise.
You were wrong in ignoring the first part. As for the assumption, you were wrong with the premise of it. There was a reason to bringing up the first part... now THAT would be the correct premise.
First of all, Obama has not even said one thing about taking guns away the whole time he has been in office. second of all, if anyone tried to take all guns away, it goes against the 2nd amendment and would be taken to court and third, I do not know anyone that wants all guns taken away. if anything, we just want gun law reform meaning things like backround checks when buying a gun or taking fingerprints or something, NOT taking all guns away.
You don't know anybody interested in taking all guns away but your side is filled with those wanting to take some kinds away.
And your sides idea of reform usually reaches farther than what they will publically admit Clinton's failed assault weapon ban as a example. Your side always has conditions, "we don't want them all, but we don't think you need that kind or that much" is how they operate.
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.
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.
under every bed and behind every bush they've been searching for new things to fear.
