Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Biden just now: "executive orders and executive action can be taken" to enact gun control

205 posts in this topic

Posted

These PsyOps are working aren't they? Remember the UN arms treaty signed a couple months ago? Sorry for being a pessimist but all these recent events(Colorado, Sandy Hook etc.) smell very fishy to me. The end justifies the means.

Sandy Hook is identical to Ops run in Palestine against school children. Just sayin'

This kind of insane thinking is the worst.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Side question: Why do the majority of the same people who swear they need weapons to defend themselves from the Government constantly vote in people wanting to expand that same Government's defense budget?

If these people voted for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson then that wouldnt be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How would you feel if Obama chooses to enact gun control via executive order?

I bet Beck and Hannity and Co. just got massive erections hearing this.

On a similar note, do gun nuts really think their assault rifles can stop the US Military if the military really wanted to take them out?

RAWR I NEED MY'S GUNZ TO PROTEKT ME FRUM THE GUBMENT!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I bet Beck and Hannity and Co. just got massive erections hearing this.

On a similar note, do gun nuts really think their assault rifles can stop the US Military if the military really wanted to take them out?

RAWR I NEED MY'S GUNZ TO PROTEKT ME FRUM THE GUBMENT!

Can they stop a predator or an M1-A1 or a 500lb JDAM? No.

Can a couple of folks with bushmasters hold off a squad or two of infantry? Yeah if they know what they are doing. How long have people on the other side of the world been holding off US troops with little more than assault rifles?

And lets face it, if the Government ever deployed troops on the ground here in the US they wouldn't be able to use some of their biggest toys. You think "collateral damages" are bad news on the other side of the globe? Let them bomb a wedding on US soil...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This kind of insane thinking is the worst.

You seem to know nothing about the Ops huh? To think that it doesn't or hasn't happened is nieve and just the type of thinking that keeps us from stopping the true madness. Do some research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How many times are we going to get the ignorant "you can't fight off the army with these" nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If deer were able to shoot back at you we would have no NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How many times are we going to get the ignorant "you can't fight off the army with these" nonsense?

Have you ever been in combat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Unconstitutional executive orders aren't laws, no matter what Obama pulls out of his ass.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They've all been viewed as unconstitutional at the time.

Emancipation Proclamation

Work Progress New Deal

Desegregation of the Armed Forces

etc.. etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Has the government started bombing weddings yet?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Opponents of laws regulating the sale, manufacture and use of guns fervently invoke the Second Amendment. In their view, the 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") forbids the government to regulate guns. Period. End of discussion.

But it is more complicated than that. At the outset, let's put aside the argument that the "well-regulated militia" clause signficantly narrows the scope of the Second Amendment. Although most judges and lawyers endorse that interpretation, the Supreme Court, in its controversial five-to-four decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, rejected that understanding of the text.

So, let's consider that matter "settled." Let's assume, then, that the Second Amendment reads: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, that sure sounds absolute. But it's not that simple.

Consider, for example, the First Amendment, which provides: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." This also sounds absolute. But does the First Amendment mean that the government cannot constitutionally regulate speech?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put that possibility to rest in 1919 with a famous hypothetical. "The most stringent protection of free speech," he observed, "would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In other words, even though the text of the First Amendment sounds absolute, it is not.

But how can this be so? Doesn't the text mean what it says? Here's the catch: Even though it is true that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," we still have to define what we mean by "the freedom of speech" that Congress may not abridge. The phrase "the freedom of speech," in other words, is not self-defining. And as Justice Holmes demonstrated with his hypothetical, it does not cover an individual who falsely shouts "fire!"in a crowded theater.

But that is only the beginning, for despite the seemingly absolute language of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has long-held that the government may regulate speech in a great many situations. In appropriate circumstances, for example, a speaker can be punished for defaming another individual, for making threats, for selling obscenity, for distributing child pornography, for inciting a murder, for "leaking" confidential information, for using a loudspeaker at night in a residential neighborhood, for handing out leaflets on a public bus, for erecting a too-large billboard, and for using naughty words on television, to cite just a few of many possible examples.

Thus, although the First Amendment seems absolute in its protection of "the freedom of speech," the Supreme Court has reasonably recognized that it does not guarantee us the right to say whatever we please, whenever we please, wherever we please, in whatever manner we please. The "freedom of speech" is subject to regulation.

The same is of course true of the Second Amendment. Even if we agree that the Second Amendment forbids the government to "infringe" the right to "keep and bear arms," that does not mean that the government cannot reasonably regulate the manufacture, sale, ownership and possession of firearms. Indeed, this is precisely what Justice Scalia said in his opinion for the Court in Heller.

It is time for opponents of gun control to stop mindlessly shouting "The Second Amendment!!" as if that ends the discussion. It does not. Just as there is no First Amendment right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre, there is no Second Amendment right to carry an AK-47 there.

And that is only the beginning of what the Second Amendment does not guarantee.

duh.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites