Should Guns Even Be A political Issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rugerman07

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
574
Location
Southern Illinois
The supreme court has ruled the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms. Why did it take a supreme court ruling to interpert the meaning of the 2nd amendment? It is very simply stated, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What part of that phrase does our government not understand? Did the comma's throw them off?

With that said, do you think guns should even be a political issue? Do we, as freedom loving americans need our elected officials to decide what's best for us? Are we not mature enough to decide that on our own? Are we still school kids and our government is our parents? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't our government suppose to support us, not control us?

What business is it of our government how many guns we have? You could kill someone just as dead with a knife, hammer, baseball bat, etc., and none of those are regulated.

Am I missing something here?
 
With that said, do you think guns should even be a political issue? Do we, as freedom loving americans need our elected officials to decide what's best for us? Are we not mature enough to decide that on our own? Are we still school kids and our government is our parents? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't our government suppose to support us, not control us?
Click to expand...

Depending on how you answer those questions inserting ANY topic for guns(and including them) IS your political philosophy(red, blue, or inbetween)
 
You know, rugerman07, you are absolutely right. Keeping and bearing arms should never end up in any political race. The way I see it, the Second Amendment would take it off the table as much as the Fifth Amendment takes double jeopardy off the table in any political race.

If someone wished to bring amending the Constitution into a political race, then maybe. But, not anything about in what fashion the protection of a right should be handled - or flat out ignored.

Woody
 
Yes it should have never taken a Supreme court ruling.

For hundreds of years people knew exactly what the 2nd meant, yet in recent times antis told people for long enough that there was some collective nonsense that took away from that. Well after people heard that argument for enough years they even started to doubt what the 2nd meant and we had to re-win something we have always had.
Oh joy a victory! :rolleyes:

The NFA in the 30's was seen by the people and the lower courts as unconstitutional at the time.
Even though it did not really ban anything and merely heavily taxed things, it was still ruled unconstitutional until it made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court packed by our good friend FDR. The FDR responsible for massive government expansion and reduction of rights.

My point is that even the general population realized that just a mere tax was unconstitutional at the time, and so did most of the courts. It was a no brainer for most of the population.
Yet now actual bans and restrictions on various things are considered 'reasonable' by some and debated.
Fees/taxes for permits not even questioned.
Is it any wonder people question that the second even means what it says?

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*



People must win rights they have always had because they put the fight off for the next generation and make due.

Even up until 1986 you could order a cheap American made full auto, pay a $200 tax on it and go through the NFA steps and nobody thought much of it.
You could pay $200 and make your own in your garage.
You could convert any weapon you own into full auto for $200.
Prior to '34 you could order any full auto through the mail, no background check or government permission, and it was yours.
Yet crime was still scarce by modern standards until they outlawed alcohol and drugs and created and financed a criminal underground in the process.


No firearms should not even be an issue. They are a clear right that 'shall not be infringed' on so who is in office should not matter. They wouldn't infringe on them anyways because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. :rolleyes:


*Except in every single possible way deemed 'reasonable'.
 
It will always be a political issue because politicians understand full well, the Second Amendment is a gun pointed at their head by the people.

The Second Amendment is our "vote" if politicians get out of hand. They will always attack this "affront" against their quest for power.
 
What should or should not be is irrelevant. It's what "is" that counts. The fact is guns are a political issue, and politicians will be trying to regulate them as much as they can get away with. Therefore, we will always have to fight the political and legal battles to preserve the RKBA to the greatest extent possible.

That's the way it is. Perhaps it's that way in part because there are enough folks who are scared of guns and freedom, and who vote and give money to political causes, to motivate politicians to seek to curry favor with them. So we need to continue to demonstrate to politicians that we are a sufficiently large political and economic force that we too must be taken seriously.
 
It just shows that their is much more to the issue than what the politicians say. Gun control is built on a lie.

The reduction of civilian ownership of weapons is an inevitable invitation to tyranny.
 
Should they (Guns) be Political..?? They ARE

...

Here's 3 good reasons why The_Government is involved, past, present, future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7KU2UhLZ5Q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8tQAYYtLok&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM


This is OUR Government's, behind closed doors, and in clear public view, idea of OUR Rights when it suits their needs..

Make no mistake, if you add all 3 up, and see the overall picture.. past, present, future

The Supreme Court isn't going to come to any one's rescue, (when the real SHTF) and, as you have seen after its Washington DC gun-ban decision and the Washington DC's Mayor, LEA, and District Attorney's Office (immediate reaction after their finding) has already skewed their finding, and continued to put restrictions/hardships on said citizen Heller et. al. of "type guns" that will "now" be "allowed.."


Wake-up and smell the coffee.. Our Government (past, present, future) is "deeply entrenched"



Ls
 
Last edited:
In our lifetime

Guns will always be a political issue. There will not be an end to the political battle to strip away our freedoms and our rights. That's just how it is, seeing it clearly and planning accordingly is the only thing we can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Can commas shoot down gun control?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Dr. Dickie
D
C
  • Locked
It Is Simple And Basic.
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Maxwell
M
C
  • Locked
Need some help on 2nd Amendment debate
Replies
14
Views
914
bfieldburt
B
W
  • Locked
Ken Blackwell Slams Justice Dept on Gun Rights Betrayal
Replies
20
Views
1K
bsf
B
U
  • Locked
2nd Amendment: Worse after Heller b/c of SCOTUS?
Replies
11
Views
864
VPLthrneck
V
Back
Top