A look at the 2 Amendment in Context.

[Lone_Gunman]

you can go ahead and fashion a new argument, because that one is completely invalid. This country has some 300 million residents, and the popular vote count was some 68 1/2 million to 59 1/2 million. 68 million is NO WHERE NEAR a majority of 300 million people. Sorry, but it just ain't so.

Ummm... OK.

I was sort of assuming you would understand that when I said "a majority of Americans would not have voted for a politician who is in favor of a total ban on handguns" , you would understand that I meant a majority of voters, and not just Americans in general. See, only voters get to vote. So, of the Americans who voted (which was obviously who I was referring to), a majority of them voted for Obama. I don't see how voters could be as pro gun as you say they are, and still a majority of them vote for Obama

 

[Gun Slinger]

See - that's where we disagree.
I don't think "they" want us dependent on the government for everything. I think they just have a narrow Utopian view of the world, or have been traumatized out of rational thought by some tragic incident.
Take the Brady's for example. People forget that James Brady was press secretary for Reagan. These are not leftist loonies. These are not people who want everyone suckling the government teet. These are people who had a tragic situation happen to them, and took an irrational response. There's plenty of people like that out there.
There's also people who just don't know any better. There's a reason why the biggest anti-movements are in the most heavily populated. They have never seen or been witness to anything good that comes from a gun. There's no family heritage of hunting in Brooklyn, and self defense would be a near non-issue if there were no guns on the South Side of Chicago.
That's where a lot of this stuff comes from. This idea that somehow it's all just a scheme because "they" want to control "us" - is... a little far fetched, no offense.

No, it's not.

Control is precisely what the Antis and the Liberals seek.

Truth is, the "Antis" and the Liberals want a dependent, defenseless populace. Remove our Rights and we are no longer citizens, we are subjects. This is exactly why they seek the obliteration of the Second Amendment.

To believe otherwise is to be simply and willfully ignorant of their track record. Their actions speak volumes and cannot be justified with the dismissive explanation that they are the acts of those motivated by the trauma of being the victim of a violent offense or by those who simply don't know any better. Their actions are un-American, vindictive and are perpetuated solely for the selfish purpose of depriving Americans of their God-given Rights.

Fool yourself if you wish, but don't expect those of us who cherish our individual Rights to engage in such self-delusive fantasy. Ain't gonna happen, not on this board.

Control is absolutely what it is all about.

 

[JoeSlomo]

i guess by your thinking, scotus is pretty childish then?

Absolutely.

Lawyers sitting around debating on what the word "stop" means is pretty ridiculous, and while this is a very simplified example, lawyers, and the SCOTUS, do just that.


"Sure, the law says "stop", but what it REALLY means...."

 

[Sinixstar]

oh how nice it must be to live in such a simple world....

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Truth is, the "Antis" and the Liberals want a dependent, defenseless populace. Remove our Rights and we are no longer citizens, we are subjects. This is exactly why they seek the obliteration of the Second Amendment.

I agree. That is why the liberal big government types also want socialized medicine, wall street bailouts leading to bank ownership by the government, etc.

 

[anymanusa]

The other 172 million were either inelligable (of the 300mil residents in the US, not all of them are 18....) or didn't have an opinion enough to bother showing up.

that does not dispute the fact that a majority of America did NOT vote for Obama. Only a very slight majority of actual voters.

The actual quote:

then a majority of Americans would not have voted for a politician

 

[Ringtail]

I see your point, but when I hear or see "living document" it is usually an attempt to change the interpretation without going through the amendment process. Simply say its a living document and it means something different now. That something different can be anything if the founders intent is not followed. The founders intent can be determined by other writings and documents that they have have left.

 

[Sinixstar]

I agree. That is why the liberal big government types also want socialized medicine, wall street bailouts leading to bank ownership by the government, etc.

Hey now - don't blame us for that. That was purely the ideas of the free-market conservatives.

 

[Gun Slinger]

I agree. That is why the liberal big government types also want socialized medicine, wall street bailouts leading to bank ownership by the government, etc.

Sounds like "suckling the government teet" to me, too.

 

[Sinixstar]

I see your point, but when I hear or see "living document" it is usually an attempt to change the interpretation without going through the amendment process. Simply say its a living document and it means something different now. That something different can be anything if the founders intent is not followed. The founders intent can be determined by other writings and documents that they have have left.

which, at one point in this thread - was exactly what we were discussing.

Ahh the good old days...

 

[Lone_Gunman]

then a majority of Americans would not have voted for a politician

I guess what you guys aren't catching is that if you are an AMERICAN and you VOTED then you are an AMERICAN VOTER. That is obviously who I was talking about. I am fully aware that babies, felons, people in comas, and people living in South America don't vote in US elections.

 

[Sinixstar]

I guess what you guys aren't catching is that if you are an AMERICAN and you VOTED then you are an AMERICAN VOTER. That is obviously who I was talking about. I am fully aware that babies, felons, people in comas, and people living in South America don't vote in US elections.

they do in chicago

 

[anymanusa]

Hey now - don't blame us for that. That was purely the ideas of the free-market conservatives

What?

 

[shiftyer1]

I may be wrong but I always understood that the national guard was t he militia that was described. Yes if they come to get mine there will be resistance. The right to defend yourself and the right to bear arms are in my opinion 2 different things. Also when the constitution was signed we had just finished a war that would have benn lost if the citizens were not armed. And yes I feel the main reason for the 2nd was to reserve the posibility to overthrow the gov. of a new nation if it got to big for it's britches, so to speak. The use of firearms for hunting wasn't even considered in the writing because this was a given, for survivl of the time. At the time everybody had a gun, preachers, store owners, EVERYONE because it's a tool just as much as a weapon. This has not changed through time just the mindset. But then again deer hunting used to be necessaty not sport. I feel the 2nd is to regulate the government, but I still cling to it to keep the things that make me happy. Sorry for my rambling not very well thought out post but I had to contribute.

 

[Sinixstar]

What?

What, like all of the sudden Bernake, Paulson, Bush, McCain etc are all "liberal Democrats"?
News to me!

 

[Gun Slinger]

I agree. That is why the liberal big government types also want socialized medicine, wall street bailouts leading to bank ownership by the government, etc.

Hey now - don't blame us for that. That was purely the ideas of the free-market conservatives.

Wrong again.

Pelosi, Reid and Schumer were the ones leading the charge on that one. They even had the unmitigated gall to name it the "Ram Plan" and we all know what they were planning to "ram" and where.

 

[anymanusa]

I was sort of assuming you would understand that when I said "a majority of Americans would not have voted for a politician who is in favor of a total ban on handguns" , you would understand that I meant a majority of voters, and not just Americans in general. See, only voters get to vote. So, of the Americans who voted (which was obviously who I was referring to), a majority of them voted for Obama. I don't see how voters could be as pro gun as you say they are, and still a majority of them vote for Obama

Ummmm... assume all you want. A majority of americans didn't vote for him.

I happen to personally know 5 people, who voted for him, but believe in gun ownership and rights. Aside from them, I have heard anecdotal evidence of others with the same mindset, who simply don't think Obama is concerned with guns, and voted for him based partially on that.

Like I said, formulate a new, valid argument.

 

[Sinixstar]

Wrong again.

Pelosi, Reid and Schumer were the ones leading the charge on that one. They even had the unmitigated gall to name it the "Ram Plan" and we all know what they were planning to "ram" and where.

Wow - I wish I knew where you got your news from.
Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer had NOTHING to do with introducing that at all. We're getting off topic here- but i suggest you do a little digging around and take a look at the history of how that came to be.
The original plan was literally 3 pages long, and was literally a call for $700 billion to hand out with no oversite, however the administration saw fit.
Go ahead, look around a bit. Paulson literally got down on his knees and begged Pelosi to get this through.
Don't for a second try to blame this debacle on us.

 

[Sinixstar]

Ummmm... assume all you want. A majority of americans didn't vote for him.

By that logic, a majority of Americans have never voted for any president, so the point is kind of irrelevant.

 

[anymanusa]

What, like all of the sudden Bernake, Paulson, Bush, McCain etc are all "liberal Democrats"?
News to me

I'm not going to bother addressing the others in your post, but McCain is considered a RINO by the vast majority of conservatives imho.

 

[Sinixstar]

I'm not going to bother addressing the others in your post, but McCain is considered a RINO by the vast majority of conservatives imho.

Then kick him out of your party like we did to Lieberman

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Like I said, formulate a new, valid argument.

Ok...

A majority of US voters voted for Obama. It is hard for me to believe that US voters are as pro gun as you say they are if they would vote for a politician who wants to ban handguns.

But we need to drop the political angle here... not allowed. Feel free to PM me if you must continue. This thread is doomed to be closed I am sure if you continue down this path.

 

[anymanusa]

By that logic, a majority of Americans have never voted for any president, so the point is kind of irrelevant.

No, my refuting a statement like "the majority of americans voted for obama" or the like, is not irrelevant.


Try again thanks.

 

[Sinixstar]

No, my refuting a statement like "the majority of americans voted for obama" or the like, is not irrelevant.

It's an exercise in what I like to call "mental masturbation".
We all know what he was getting at. Are you technically correct if you break down the exact literal meaning of the words? Yes, no one denies that.

Is there a point in refuting the statement to begin with? None that's been provided thus far.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Don't for a second try to blame this debacle on us.

Wasn't trying to. The liberals had just as much to do with this as the conservatives. I question your perception of reality when you post something like:

Hey now - don't blame us for that. That was purely the ideas of the free-market conservatives.

Now the liberals are looking for another $700 Billion in entitlements once B.O. takes office. Typical Liberal ideology, trying to spend their way out of debt. Tax and spend has never worked and won't this time either.

Gimme a break.