Elastic Clause - Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”
This is what I’m referring too.
So… yeah.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
I prefer to carry an M4, just like Jesus.[/quote]
I prefer…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I don’t know where they get the idea that Obama gives a shit about their guns with the economy in the toilet, an energy crisis looming, Iran possibly building a bomb, etc. I guarantee he hasn’t bestowed a single second’s thought on gun legislation. The grown-ups are busy.[/quote]
It doesn’t particularly matter what Obama has been thinking about. I don’t think he’s been thinking of much; he’s been bought and paid for for about $700 million. He’ll sign what he’s told to sign. Obama may not care about my guns, but those that he’s beholden to do care. From change.gov:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.
Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
I prefer to carry an M4, just like Jesus.
I prefer…[/quote]
Aaaaahahahaha!
I’m using that for all my Christmas cards this year.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey Blacksnake:
I think your Minuteman needs an M14. ;)[/quote]
Hah! I agree!..I also want to commend you for patience & logic in the face of cowardly personal attacks & gratuitous trolling provocation, a very good response you made. One more thing: Did anyone notice that my Minuteman was “Black”? 
Here’s another Revolutionary War image…
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
It doesn’t particularly matter what Obama has been thinking about…he’s been bought and paid for for about $700 million. He’ll sign what he’s told to sign. Obama may not care about my guns, but those that he’s beholden to do care…[/quote]
The knife edge of a realist mind…Kudos to you…
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
This is what I was getting at. The old saying is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the others.
[/quote]
Again, if you think your AR-15 guarantees you shit other than a quick escalation of force and a quick subsequent death in the event of whatever government takeover you people fantasize about, you’re kidding yourselves (by the way, Fun Fact: this is made possible by the large expensive military you guys insist on!). By all means, have your guns, believe me, I don’t care. But stop with this pathetic Rambo shit. It pains me to think that you people have nothing better to concern yourselves with.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
[/quote]
Nice. I keep forgetting that Republicans are such masters of elevated discourse. When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
This is what I was getting at. The old saying is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the others.
[/quote]
Sounds good, too bad it doesn’t pan out. But conservatives are generally only interested in what sounds good anyway, so no matter.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
This is what I was getting at. The old saying is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the others.
Again, if you think your AR-15 guarantees you shit other than a quick escalation of force and a quick subsequent death in the event of whatever government takeover you people fantasize about, you’re kidding yourselves (by the way, Fun Fact: this is made possible by the large expensive military you guys insist on!). By all means, have your guns, believe me, I don’t care. But stop with this pathetic Rambo shit. It pains me to think that you people have nothing better to concern yourselves with.
[/quote]
Are you saying that you have no flashpoint? Will you peaceably accept whatever infringements upon your liberty that the .gov wants?
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:Are you saying that you have no flashpoint? Will you peaceably accept whatever infringements upon your liberty that the .gov wants?
mike[/quote]
The point I’ve been trying to make is that in the event of any infringement which actually warranted violent resistance, it wouldn’t matter. I’m assuming a complicit military/police force in this scenario. If they are not, you don’t have to worry anyway.
Besides, if the Bush administration hasn’t been enough to make me take up arms, I’ve got nothing to fear from Obama.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
Nice. I keep forgetting that Republicans are such masters of elevated discourse. When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
You weren’t discoursing with a Republican. And you’re not discoursing rather well at all anyway. Step up to the plate and answer the question, O master of forensics.[/quote]
Oh, let me guess! You’re a Libertarian! How silly of me for not being able to tell the difference!
I’m sorry I’m not meeting your standards. Calling someone “ignoramus” is an awfully tough act to follow.
I’ll repeat: When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:Are you saying that you have no flashpoint? Will you peaceably accept whatever infringements upon your liberty that the .gov wants?
mike
The point I’ve been trying to make is that in the event of any infringement which actually warranted violent resistance, it wouldn’t matter. I’m assuming a complicit military/police force in this scenario. If they are not, you don’t have to worry anyway.
Besides, if the Bush administration hasn’t been enough to make me take up arms, I’ve got nothing to fear from Obama.
[/quote]
Wait, I want to be 100% with you. So our disagreement is that I think we can depose the government in a revolt and you don’t. As such you think that we should all willingly consent to being sheep to the slaughter rather than to take up arms and roll the dice. Am I right?
mike
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’ll repeat: When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
[/quote]
Ryan, I’ve addressed your points in my previous post. I am hereby informing you that I am ready to debate for real, without, I hope, any sniping on either side.
For your consideration, here is another post I made a few days ago, in response to a gentleman in California who opined that a ban of “auto and machine gun ammo, or other extraneous ammunition” would not constitute a violation of the Second Amendment. Naturally, I disputed the point, as follows:
United States Constitution, Amendment II
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.
militia noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
Now, some historical context. In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment specifically protected the right of the civil population (i.e. “the people”) to own and maintain “military weapons in common use” that would be used to supplement the regular armed forces in time of emergency.
In 1939, the military weapons in common use included the Springfield M1903 rifle, the Enfield M1917 rifle, the M1 Garand rifle, the Browning Automatic Rifle and Browning .30 machine gun, the Thompson submachine gun, and the Colt M1911 .45 automatic pistol.
In 2008, the military weapons in common use include the M16A4 rifle, the M14 rifle, the M4 carbine, the M21 sniper rifle, the Beretta M9 automatic pistol, and the Mk 46 and Mk 48 light machine guns.
The right to own these weapons is protected by the Second Amendment, as written in 1789, and interpreted by the court in 1939.
If by association the amendment may also be interpreted as protecting the right to own deer rifles, skeet guns and target pistols, that’s dandy, but what the 2nd amendment is really all about is guaranteeing civilians the right to arm themselves with military weapons, so that they may fight alongside government troops if required, or against them if absolutely necessary.
A few other points:
I have never fantasized about a government takeover. I simply prepare for whatever may come, using ancient and recent history as a guide.
I have never insisted upon a large expensive military, although I was once a member of it. Rather, I suggest that a well-armed, well-equipped civilian militia such as was used by the classical Greek city-states, as has been used by Switzerland for its past five centuries of peace and neutrality, and as was suggested by the anti-Federalists (who gave us our Bill of Rights), is all we need to secure our borders, to repel invasion, and to keep the Federal Government subordinate to the will of the people.
Finally, my nickname at Fort Benning was “Rambo.” However, there is nothing pathetic about my misgivings about this bill, which as you’ll recall is the original focus of this thread.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.’
I’m hoping that after Heller, a ban as written above would not pass constitutional muster. The court in Heller held that handguns and other weapons “in common use” are protected. Hopefully enough AR style rifles have been sold in the past 40 years to qualify them and anything else like them as being “in common use”. Heller also makes clear that the rights codified by the 2nd Amendment are not about “sporting purposes”.
[/quote]
All very true. ARs are commonly used in hunting, rifle comps etc. I know we have a 2nd Amendment right, but this to me would eb common use.
Comps, hunting, self defense look like common use to me.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Except that my previous post makes a grand total of one (1) post I’ve made about the subject.
Good, if you don’t feel passionate about the Bill of Rights, feel free to not post.
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
BS. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the government’s commitment to abide by all the others.
Haha! I was hoping this would come up. If you actually think your AR-15, or your Glock with extended pre-ban magazine, or your Benelli tactical shotgun are going to do shit to help you if the government actually came to get you, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time.
This kind of stupid 10-year-old macho bullshit is why I’m embarrassed to come out for concealed-carry and similar pro-gun laws in discussions.
I think I’m going to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by shooting Republicans.
[/quote]
I’d like to see you try, haha!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’ll repeat: When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know…
Ryan, I’ve addressed your points in my previous post. I am hereby informing you that I am ready to debate for real, without, I hope, any sniping on either side.
He’s really not interested in a debate; he’s hopelessly outclassed right from the git-go and he knows it.
[/quote]
Yep.