Author Topic: 2nd amendment - a political issue? (Read 2060 times)

gunpilot · « **on:** January 21, 2012, 01:35:59 PM »

To me, the second amendment should not even be a political issue. It is ingrained in our bill of rights just as is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Yes I suppose you could be against freedom, because we have the freedom to express our opinion. If we did not, we would not be able to do so. duh?

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2012, 01:38:54 AM »

It will always be an issue. We have to know the people we elect will not try to make any anti-gun laws. Liberals think the Constitution is a living document, and they can change it to fit their needs.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2012, 02:04:37 AM »

As long as men are afraid to act, the Constitution means nothing.
when the founding fathers penned the 2nd amendment, they assumed that future generations would have some guts.

powderman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2012, 04:55:35 PM »

The 2nd will always be a political issue as long as there are mentally challenged folks communists, and democrats. POWDERMAN.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:26:40 PM »

Quote from: powderman on January 25, 2012, 04:55:35 PM

The 2nd will always be a political issue as long as there are mentally challenged folks communists, and democrats. POWDERMAN.

uh.......What's the difference b'tween them groups?

powderman · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2012, 04:19:03 PM »

Quote from: Cuts Crooked on January 26, 2012, 03:26:40 PM

Quote from: powderman on January 25, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
The 2nd will always be a political issue as long as there are mentally challenged folks communists, and democrats. POWDERMAN.

uh.......What's the difference b'tween them groups?

CUTS. There isn't any difference, that was my feeble attempt at trying to be polite. POWDERMAN.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2012, 11:09:25 PM »

Quote from: powderman on January 26, 2012, 04:19:03 PM

CUTS. There isn't any difference, that was my feeble attempt at trying to be polite. POWDERMAN.

Ok! I just lump thenm all together under the label of "Socialistdemolibs"

nw_hunter · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2012, 03:06:14 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on January 25, 2012, 02:04:37 AM

As long as men are afraid to act, the Constitution means nothing.
when the founding fathers penned the 2nd amendment, they assumed that future generations would have some guts.

AND!.......................Libertarians

If they assumed this, then they were wrong on both accounts.
They didn't know much about Democrats and Republicans back then.

mechanic · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2012, 03:16:43 PM »

Something thats always rattled around in my mind, is the wording of the bill of rights. For instance, we have "freedom of speech". We understand the meaning implied, but more correctly, we have freedom from consequences of speaking freely. The government has no right to punish us in an way for speaking our mind, etc.

Applying this to the second amendment, if they take our arms, we will then suffer the consequences..........they can do with us what they will.

Ben

m-g Willy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2012, 04:35:40 PM »

[quote author=Cuts Crooked.

Ok! I just lump thenm all together under the label of "Socialistdemolibs"

So that's what you call them!
I always referred to them as..... ahhhhh..... never mind.
I like it around here and this is one time I'm keeping my mouth shut!

twoshooter · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2012, 04:03:14 PM »

Let me explain something gentlemen. There is a document that said that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Point # 1 IF there were a CREATOR capable of all that, we would not be in the shape we are in, because no one would let his work get screwed up so bad. #2. Life was the first "right". Has the government ever been responsible for anyone losing their life?? Hmmm. Capital punishment, draft, war, requlations, tax policy.... OK. How about #3, Liberty. Anyone ever lose liberty ? We have more per capita people in jail by a factor of two than Russia, who is number 2. How about 80,000 pages of regulations. Even the creator was supposed to get by with 10 commandments. And finally #3. Pursuit of happiness. I would say that the mere existence of this forum and thread would take care of that, right on down to fishing licenses and zoning ordinances. So I am sorry to disabuse you of your favorite fantasies, but you have whatever "rights" you have the cajones to demand and enforce. The government is just a pain in the keester, it does not get totally overbearing because people would revolt, and what is worse, quit paying for everything. A farmer drives his cows, but he does not damage them or he gets no milk. Judge Napalitano I think called it "libido domani", the lust for power. They have got it. They will take as much as they can get away with. They dont get tired, they dont give up, and they never go away. That is why "eternal vigilance" is the price of freedom. Dont get excited, just take care of business.

blind ear · « **Reply #11 on:** May 06, 2012, 03:45:20 AM »

Secound Ammendment is very much a political issue wheather it should be or not. I wish it was still included in the political issues thread. From the number of post here it doesn't look as if it would overburden that thread. ear

45-70.gov · « **Reply #12 on:** May 06, 2012, 04:05:56 AM »

Quote from: twoshooter on February 12, 2012, 04:03:14 PM

Let me explain something gentlemen. There is a document that said that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Point # 1 IF there were a CREATOR ..........................................................., because no one would let his work get screwed up so bad. #2. ... OK. How about #3, Liberty. Anyone ever lose liberty ? We have more per capita people in jail by a factor of two than Russia, who is number 2..

#1....now you know why the democrats attack religion

#3......50% of all in prison are on drug related charges
we still have drug problems....what is that definition of insanity again??

ppine · « **Reply #13 on:** May 06, 2012, 05:51:56 AM »

I have been around guns all my life like most people here. The Second Am has been politicized by fear-based groups like the NRA. I used to be a member, but now find them to be reactionary. The only change to the gun laws under Obama has been the legalization of firearms in National Parks.

r29l20 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 08, 2012, 09:36:15 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on January 25, 2012, 02:04:37 AM

As long as men are afraid to act, the Constitution means nothing.
when the founding fathers penned the 2nd amendment, they assumed that future generations would have some guts.

+1

BUGEYE · « **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:58:18 AM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on February 02, 2012, 03:06:14 PM

Quote from: BUGEYE on January 25, 2012, 02:04:37 AM
As long as men are afraid to act, the Constitution means nothing.
when the founding fathers penned the 2nd amendment, they assumed that future generations would have some guts.

AND!.......................Libertarians If they assumed this, then they were wrong on both accounts.
They didn't know much about Democrats and Republicans back then.

you know that "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing? libertarians remove the "life" part if the person is unborn.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/evangelicals/bible-teachings

BCarp · « **Reply #16 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:46:18 AM »

Quote from: ppine on May 06, 2012, 05:51:56 AM

I have been around guns all my life like most people here. The Second Am has been politicized by fear-based groups like the NRA. I used to be a member, but now find them to be reactionary. The only change to the gun laws under Obama has been the legalization of firearms in National Parks.

Obama assured Sarah Brady that his gun-control efforts were proceeding "under the radar." If you really believe that Obama and like-minded leftists are not interested in curtailing your 2nd amendment rights, you're living in dreamland. They hold off to avoid political suicide, but their intent is still there. A second Obama term, especially with Dem congrssional majorities (God forbid!) would bring their efforts out from "under the radar"....

guzzijohn · « **Reply #17 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:41:47 AM »

Okay I am trying to make some sense of what Obama may or may not do if reelected. The last gun restrictions took place under Bush, no more restrictions under Obama so far. Many on this board claim that Obama's support of gay marriage is just for getting votes even though he will probably loose more votes than he will gain. There are far more gun owner (between 40-80 million depending upon whose numbers you want to use). Why would he risk alienating that many voters? And remember even if Obama does not have to worry about reelection after a second term the democratic party still has to worry about it and would not want Obama to ruin any chances of a democratic followup.
GuzziJohn

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #18 on:** May 14, 2012, 10:22:04 AM »

As long as our bill of rights can be altered or laws can be passed things will remain political. And the lazy complainers who don't vote need to realize it and get off their back side and vote to remain free.

jimster · « **Reply #19 on:** May 15, 2012, 10:05:47 AM »

Gun restrictions are written and passed by congress, not the president. Truth is the dems in congress want nothing to do with that right now, and truth is they don't care much for Obama either, they want nothing to to with his budgets (the dems tossed it out 99 zip) they want nothing to do with his left wing agenda, mainly because they are looking at losing a bunch more seats at election time and he has thrown them under the buss and will do so again...and they know it.
If the time was right for congress to pass more gun laws they would, Obama would sign it in a heart beat...but he can't, because that legislation will not be there...the dems know all too well what can happen if they mess around now. They are keeping their heads as low as they can.
So I think this deal of "Obama has not passed any guns laws" thing is a little bit of a far fetched idea...Congress has not passed any gun laws, and they won't...not yet anyway. So there will be nothing for him to sign. Dems don't care for him either...you can bet on that. He'd sell them all out as fast as he did his preacher and everyone else he dealt with.
When the time is right for the Dems in congress to write more gun laws, they will, but not if it will cost them a seat....they figure they have lost enough seats under Obama for now.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #20 on:** May 15, 2012, 10:16:27 AM »

Quote from jimster:
"So I think this deal of "Obama has not passed any guns laws" thing is a little bit of a far fetched idea...Congress has not passed any gun laws, and they won't...not yet anyway."

You are quite correct but most on this board seem to believe it is all in Obama's hands, at least from the wordings of their posts and from the great increase in gun and ammo sales when he was elected. This board is full of ultra conservative Chicken Littles.
GuzziJohn

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 15, 2012, 10:21:08 AM »

Quote from: jimster on May 15, 2012, 10:05:47 AM

Gun restrictions are written and passed by congress, not the president. Truth is the dems in congress want nothing to do with that right now, and truth is they don't care much for Obama either, they want nothing to to with his budgets (the dems tossed it out 99 zip) they want nothing to do with his left wing agenda, mainly because they are looking at losing a bunch more seats at election time and he has thrown them under the buss and will do so again...and they know it.

I believe Jimster has that about right. The occassional Democrat ideologue will give gun-grabbin' a try, but most of the part - much as they might like it? - KNOW it's not gonna fly. they remember 1994.