If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Even God Almighty's attorney general declares Obama's gun control proposals (which we don't know yet) to be an impeachable offense. Praise be to him, for we are not worthy   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 236
    More: Ironic, President Obama, articles of impeachment, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  
•       •       •

3599 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2013 at 9:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 08:08:40 AM
*opens link in new tab*

The Reagan Administration, The Heritage Foundation and Newsmax all in first line or two.

*closes tab*
 
2013-01-16 08:12:47 AM

Peter von Nostrand: *opens link in new tab*

The Reagan Administration, The Heritage Foundation and Newsmax all in first line or two.

*closes tab*


You have spared us all. Thank you.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 08:58:26 AM
It's like these people are all licking LSD stamps or something.
 
2013-01-16 09:05:12 AM
This kind of guy, and everyone who has lost their farking gourd before anything is on the table, are exactly the people who should not be so well armed.

Control your shiat, you know? Reign it in. Calm down. Act like adults here.
 
2013-01-16 09:16:11 AM
I think modern conservative thought can be summed up thusly:

"Oh, hey!  Look!  I'm on TeeeVee!"

That's really all these assholes care about, and I don't think they believe the crazy shiat they spew.  To them, it's all about being seen on the television.
 
2013-01-16 09:18:46 AM
repeat
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 09:38:53 AM
Waitwaitwait. Someone thinks they've found a reason to impeach the President. What, is it a day ending in Y already?
 
2013-01-16 09:44:34 AM
Morgan Freeman has an Attorney General?
 
2013-01-16 09:46:23 AM
In other news, saying stupid stuff will garner you a paycheck.
 
2013-01-16 09:46:56 AM

Peter von Nostrand: *opens link in new tab*

The Reagan Administration, The Heritage Foundation and Newsmax all in first line or two.

*closes tab*


I wish I would have read these comments before opening the link. I feel dirty everytime I read Heritage Foundation.

WE GET IT!!!!! HE'S BLAH!!!!
 
2013-01-16 09:47:49 AM
"We want to impeach the President because he is trying to avoid another school tragedy"...

Yea, go with that Republicans... I'm sure it will go well in future elections.
 
2013-01-16 09:49:56 AM

Peter von Nostrand: *opens link in new tab*

The Reagan Administration, The Heritage Foundation and Newsmax all in first line or two.

*closes tab*


Did the exact same thing.

This is going to be brilliant. Obama is going to offer up some common sense, really non-controversial gun control measures and the right wing is going to lose whatever is left of its collective mind. They're going to go even bat-shiattier bat shiat crazy, throwing around the "IMPEEACCHH!!!" line for the next 2 years. And Democrats are going to have a cakewalk into the midterm elections.
 
2013-01-16 09:52:45 AM
Go for it.  Impeach him.  See what happens.
 
2013-01-16 09:52:46 AM
So do I finally get to put an "Impeach" sticker on my car like all of the loonies did after 2004?

I guess I still won't because I don't want to ruin my car and i'm not batshiat crazy.
 
2013-01-16 09:54:20 AM
Oh, so the former Attorney General of the administration that supported apartheid and gave weapons to the mujaheddin while doing everything possible to destroy the middle class and enacted it's own gun legislation says this is bad news bears? Oh, let me just write this down here on these stone tablets so we may use them as a metric for the future.

You clod. Die already.
 
2013-01-16 09:54:56 AM

Vodka Zombie: I think modern conservative thought can be summed up thusly:

"Oh, hey!  Look!  I'm on TeeeVee!"

That's really all these assholes care about, and I don't think they believe the crazy shiat they spew.  To them, it's all about being seen on the television.


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 09:56:09 AM
Kind of seems like he was saying that it depends on what Obama tries to do...
 
2013-01-16 09:56:35 AM

LasersHurt: This kind of guy, and everyone who has lost their farking gourd before anything is on the table, are exactly the people who should not be so well armed.

Control your shiat, you know? Reign it in. Calm down. Act like adults here.


This seems pretty prophetic right now:

This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few
million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point
of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps
the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will
be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall
first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side,
"Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves
no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries. But
slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis that fits the
phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having guns,
someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and liberty.
Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.

- The Great American Gun War by Barry Bruce-Briggs (1976)


It's pretty bad when you've got former members of the government among that "hard-core group" of just a few million(!).
So, if we don't want nasty things to happen, stop painting gun owners as immature nuts, and stop pushing for more gun control.

I'll even do everyone a public service by profiling the type of person you *REALLY* need to look out for: White, male, in his mid to late 20's or early 30's, unattached, combat veteran of either Iraq or Afghanistan, avid gun owner/collector, probably doesn't have a steady job. And because of a single novel the paradigm has changed, so looking for people who fit this profile buying fertilizer isn't going to help.

I don't fit the profile: I'm too old, I have no guns that could possibly be banned (unless, of course, the VPC gets scoped bolt actions banned somehow), I have a wife and child, a house, roots in the community (I coach baseball and help with Cub Scouts), and a decent job. I might be pissed, but all I'm going to do is things like contacting my legislators, exercising my right to jaw-jack about it in person and online, and give money to organizations that fight this sort of thing.

Which brings up an interesting point: As soon as I have the spare cash, I'm joining the NRA. I haven't been a member since the mid-1990's, when I was a member for like 2 years. I'm not a joiner: I'm an avid ham radio operator but I'm not a member of the ARRL.  This push for more gun control is making me put my money where my mouth is.
 
2013-01-16 09:57:10 AM
Obama's been busy planning the inauguration events.

When he gets done with that shin dig he's going to read up on all the things he's been accused of and laugh so hard he breaks a rib.
 
2013-01-16 09:59:54 AM

thenewmissus: Peter von Nostrand: *opens link in new tab*

The Reagan Administration, The Heritage Foundation and Newsmax all in first line or two.

*closes tab*

I wish I would have read these comments before opening the link. I feel dirty everytime I read Heritage Foundation.

WE GET IT!!!!! HE'S BLAH!!!!


It's not that he's black. It's that he's a democrat - they impeached Clinton and shut down the government to try and make him look bad. They even used the same spending BS.

It's not that he's black - it's that republicans are egomaniacs who will do anything to win. It's always someone else's fault and they are always right.
 
2013-01-16 10:01:10 AM

Richard Flaccid: So do I finally get to put an "Impeach" sticker on my car like all of the loonies did after 2004?

I guess I still won't because I don't want to ruin my car and i'm not batshiat crazy.


Yeah, these two situations are exactly the same. Go with that. It makes you sound smart.
 
2013-01-16 10:01:27 AM

soup: Obama is going to offer up some common sense, really non-controversial gun control measures


That phraseology, "common sense" is really over-used. We *HAVE* pretty common sense regulations at the federal level *NOW*.

The problem is that what you might consider "common sense" might make no actual sense in the real world.

Also, the mere fact that we are talking about this, and the country is deeply divided, means that further gun control measures are bound to be controversial: Look at what Cuomo did in my state. Do you think Obama wants anything less at the federal level? At least in Congress we probably won't have to worry about the executive using an anti-democratic tactic in a shady manner to pass something in the dead of the night. Probably.
 
2013-01-16 10:02:04 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Vodka Zombie: I think modern conservative thought can be summed up thusly:

"Oh, hey!  Look!  I'm on TeeeVee!"

That's really all these assholes care about, and I don't think they believe the crazy shiat they spew.  To them, it's all about being seen on the television.

[img.photobucket.com image 634x762]


Thread over!
 
2013-01-16 10:02:45 AM
FTFA below: " Short of a major bombshell revelation, any impeachment proceeding would likely be viewed by most Americans as an exercise in both political bitterness by Republicans, and paranoia by conspiracy theorists."
 
2013-01-16 10:02:56 AM
Off hand, how do the republicans coordinate their group think?  Telegraph? Slaves?  Mindworms?  The Namshub of Enki?
 
2013-01-16 10:03:02 AM
At least Obama isn't trying to ban people from carrying guns in public at all like some radical leftist governor of California did in 1967.
 
2013-01-16 10:05:09 AM
dittybopper:

That's not even slightly prophetic. That's just a threat, really - these people are insecure and well armed, so just back off or they'll shoot you?
 
2013-01-16 10:11:25 AM
I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

2. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12-16: Congress Shall (have the power) :To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

3. Article 2, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...


It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.

Lastly, the President is given the power to control the actions of the entirety of the militia as well as any individual member of said militia as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Seems fairly certain to me that the founders have long ago granted some control over the armed citizen and that control rests in both the hands of Congress and the Executive Branch. I don't see how you could sustain an impeachment for something that has a very rational and reasonable basis for arguing the Constitution expressly supports.
 
2013-01-16 10:15:06 AM
I was wondering why no one has gone with the "Nag" joke and relied on "BLAH". Damn you FARK. Damn you!
 
2013-01-16 10:16:49 AM

LasersHurt: dittybopper:

That's not even slightly prophetic. That's just a threat, really - these people are insecure and well armed, so just back off or they'll shoot you?


No ones talking about shooting anyone. Stop the fear mongering.
People are concerned about the direction government is taking and they are filing the necessary paperwork to voice that concern.

Its not wrong to use the system.
 
2013-01-16 10:18:22 AM

LasersHurt: dittybopper:

That's not even slightly prophetic. That's just a threat, really - these people are insecure and well armed, so just back off or they'll shoot you?


"If this goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!" - Tactical Response CEO James Yeager

dittybopper: stop painting gun owners as immature nuts.


Stop being immature nuts. To a man, every gun owner I've talked to long enough about this subject has, eventually, fallen back on the "from my cold dead hands!" argument; suggesting violence to anyone trying to regulate their hobby. Learn to have an adult conversation about this and you'll stop being painted as immature nuts.
 
2013-01-16 10:19:48 AM
png-1.findicons.com- Former Reagan Attorney General
png-1.findicons.com- Edwin Meese
png-1.findicons.com- Emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation
png-1.findicons.com- Conservative
png-1.findicons.com- Speaking with Newsmax
www.spasearch.org - Wants to buy lunch for Obama
www.spasearch.org - Thinks people should be more tolerant
www.spasearch.org - Disapproves of that NRA iPhone game
png-1.findicons.com- Is sick and tired of kids on his lawn
png-1.findicons.com- Hates the dog eating socialist, pinko in the White House.
png-1.findicons.com- Thinks everyone should study it out so they know Obama is a communist and doesn't think like them.
s2.postimage.org
 
2013-01-16 10:21:35 AM

way south: LasersHurt: dittybopper:

That's not even slightly prophetic. That's just a threat, really - these people are insecure and well armed, so just back off or they'll shoot you?

No ones talking about shooting anyone. Stop the fear mongering.
People are concerned about the direction government is taking and they are filing the necessary paperwork to voice that concern.

Its not wrong to use the system.


I'm talking about the quote he had literally posted, not whatever it is you're talking about. It threatened "nasty things may happen."
 
2013-01-16 10:26:37 AM
Well for one day I'll be happy to have a Republican controlled House, when they deep six whatever bill Obama tries to introduce. Then I'll go back to loathing them as they fark around with the debt ceiling.
 
2013-01-16 10:28:10 AM

Deneb81:

It's not that he's black. It's that he's a democrat - they impeached Clinton and shut down the government to try and make him look bad. They even used the same spending BS.

It's not that he's black - it's that republicans are egomaniacs who will do anything to win. It's always someone else's fault and they are always right.


Exactly. We'd be hearing this same shiat if Hillary was in the WH. They just can't handle the idea that someone would dare stand in the way of their plans for America.
 
2013-01-16 10:30:11 AM

hugram: "We want to impeach the President because he is trying to avoid another school tragedy"...

Yea, go with that Republicans... I'm sure it will go well in future elections.


Right. Becasue Constitutional seperation of powers was a stupid idea. Running an end around a constitutional right that specifically says "Make no laws to infringe on this " really doesn't matter amiright? I mean, Obama means well, and you guys like him, and guns are scary, and who knows, there could be another masacre tomorrow (TOMORROW!!!!) so, yea, what the hell.
 
2013-01-16 10:31:09 AM

lawboy87: I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

2. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12-16: Congress Shall (have the power) :To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

3. Article 2, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...


It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.

Lastly, the President is given the power to control the actions of the entirety of the militia as well as any individual member of said militia as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Seems fairly certain to me that the founders have long ago granted some control over the armed citizen and that control rest ...


Quit pointing out how liberal the GOP and NRA are! It makes baby Republican Jesus cry!
 
2013-01-16 10:33:21 AM
You know if this adminstration was concerned as much with balancing the budget and getting spending under control as it is with gun control laws the buddget would have been balanced years ago.

sigh.
 
2013-01-16 10:35:15 AM
The police COULD charge this man with raoe for his sexual acts. There do exist, however, some sexual acts which aren't rape.
 
2013-01-16 10:36:03 AM

Deneb81: thenewmissus: Peter von Nostrand: *opens link in new tab*

The Reagan Administration, The Heritage Foundation and Newsmax all in first line or two.

*closes tab*

I wish I would have read these comments before opening the link. I feel dirty everytime I read Heritage Foundation.

WE GET IT!!!!! HE'S BLAH!!!!

It's not that he's black. It's that he's a democrat - they impeached Clinton and shut down the government to try and make him look bad. They even used the same spending BS.

It's not that he's black - it's that republicans are egomaniacs who will do anything to win. It's always someone else's fault and they are always right.


Uh huh. I realize that the republicans haven't ONLY tried to impeach a black man. What was alluded to was that their motives are suspect and under a microscope because they have made it their mission to get rid of Pres. Obama before he made any legislative decisions. Like I said, we get it. He's BLAH!!!!!
 
2013-01-16 10:38:17 AM

lawboy87: I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

...

It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.


I still find it amazing how low our standards of reading comprehension have dropped to over the last 20 years. Your whole argument is based on the fact that the second amendment mentions the need for a militia to maintain a free state. However, for anyone who can read; this includes constitutional lawyers, scholars, and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all reached the conclusion that the first clause of the ammendment simply states the purpose thereof. It is NOT a requirement, because the actual right bestowed is granted to the people, not the militia:

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.

How difficult can this be?

/Obama voter, '08/'12
//Gun owner and CFP holder
///True believer in every part of the Bill of Rights, not just ammendment 2.
 
2013-01-16 10:39:36 AM
The only interesting thing about this story is that Ed Meese is still alive.
 
2013-01-16 10:39:59 AM
Surely if the constitution is taken to read that no restrictions can be put on gun ownership at all, so even considering adding new restrictions is impeachable, then this would logically imply all existing restrictions on gun ownership are similarly unconstitutional, and thus automatic weapons must be allowed, and rocket launchers, and MG3s, etc. I can't see any way you can read the constitution to say that the right cannot be infringed, except exactly how much it has been infringed up to 2009.
 
2013-01-16 10:41:16 AM

Danger Mouse: hugram: "We want to impeach the President because he is trying to avoid another school tragedy"...

Yea, go with that Republicans... I'm sure it will go well in future elections.

Right. Becasue Constitutional seperation of powers was a stupid idea. Running an end around a constitutional right that specifically says "Make no laws to infringe on this " really doesn't matter amiright? I mean, Obama means well, and you guys like him, and guns are scary, and who knows, there could be another masacre tomorrow (TOMORROW!!!!) so, yea, what the hell.


A. your a idiot
2. Here's a list of presidents "running an end around a constitution" before Oblahma did. (note the number of executive orders from the immediate previous president.
3rdly. get infromed before you spout talking point nonsense about the 2nd Amendment. What part of "well-regulated" are you having trouble with?
 
2013-01-16 10:42:01 AM

lunging_man_ass: lawboy87: I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

...

It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.

I still find it amazing how low our standards of reading comprehension have dropped to over the last 20 years. Your whole argument is based on the fact that the second amendment mentions the need for a militia to maintain a free state. However, for anyone who can read; this includes constitutional lawyers, scholars, and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all reached the conclusion that the first clause of the ammendment simply states the purpose thereof. It is NOT a requirement, because the actual right bestowed is granted to the people, not the militia:

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.

How difficult can this be?

/Obama voter, '08/'12
//Gun owner and CFP holder
///True believer in every part of the Bill of Rights, not just ammendment 2.


Forgot something?
 
2013-01-16 10:47:43 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: lunging_man_ass: lawboy87: I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

...

It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.

I still find it amazing how low our standards of reading comprehension have dropped to over the last 20 years. Your whole argument is based on the fact that the second amendment mentions the need for a militia to maintain a free state. However, for anyone who can read; this includes constitutional lawyers, scholars, and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all reached the conclusion that the first clause of the ammendment simply states the purpose thereof. It is NOT a requirement, because the actual right bestowed is granted to the people, not the militia:

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.

How difficult can this be?

/Obama voter, '08/'12
//Gun owner and CFP holder
///True believer in every part of the Bill of Rights, not just ammendment 2.

Forgot something?


You did, you forgot to read my post. Or perhaps your reading comprehension is also defective? Shall I rephrase and repeat? The text clearly states that a militia is needed for a free state, so the right is given to the people to bear arms.
 
2013-01-16 10:48:52 AM

hugram: "We want to impeach the President because he is trying to avoid another school tragedy"...

Yea, go with that Republicans... I'm sure it will go well in future elections.


Republicans: pro rape, pro child murder (as long as it's done with a gun).
 
2013-01-16 10:51:32 AM

lunging_man_ass: However, for anyone who can read; this includes constitutional lawyers, scholars, and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all reached the conclusion that the first clause of the ammendment simply states the purpose thereof. It is NOT a requirement, because the actual right bestowed is granted to the people, not the militia:


The right is bestowed to the people, the militia's regulation, however, comes from the government.
 
2013-01-16 10:51:47 AM

lunging_man_ass: Princess Ryans Knickers: lunging_man_ass: lawboy87: I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

...

It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.

I still find it amazing how low our standards of reading comprehension have dropped to over the last 20 years. Your whole argument is based on the fact that the second amendment mentions the need for a militia to maintain a free state. However, for anyone who can read; this includes constitutional lawyers, scholars, and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all reached the conclusion that the first clause of the ammendment simply states the purpose thereof. It is NOT a requirement, because the actual right bestowed is granted to the people, not the militia:

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.

How difficult can this be?

/Obama voter, '08/'12
//Gun owner and CFP holder
///True believer in every part of the Bill of Rights, not just ammendment 2.

Forgot something?

You did, you forgot to read my post. Or perhaps your reading comprehension is also defective? Shall I rephrase and repeat? The text clearly states that a militia is needed for a free state, so the right is given to the people to bear arms.


As is your reading comprehension. Go back and re-read the original post you responded to, including the bolded parts.
 
2013-01-16 10:52:38 AM

lunging_man_ass: lawboy87: I wonder how they will be able to reconcile the following Constitutional Provisions:

1. 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.

...

It certainly seems like the 2nd Amendment has a condition precedent, tying gun ownership to being some element/member of the militia. (NO other Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains qualifying language of the sort employed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Further, Congress has the power to control how the state militias are actually armed and likewise has control over the organization and discipline of individual members of any state militia as well as the command organization.

I still find it amazing how low our standards of reading comprehension have dropped to over the last 20 years. Your whole argument is based on the fact that the second amendment mentions the need for a militia to maintain a free state. However, for anyone who can read; this includes constitutional lawyers, scholars, and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all reached the conclusion that the first clause of the ammendment simply states the purpose thereof. It is NOT a requirement, because the actual right bestowed is granted to the people, not the militia:

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.

How difficult can this be?

/Obama voter, '08/'12
//Gun owner and CFP holder
///True believer in every part of the Bill of Rights, not just ammendment 2.


So you believe any regulation to firearms violates the Constitution.
 
Displayed 50 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report