National Security angle???

[slimmer13]

Just something ive been thinking about.

Some have expressed thoughts that since San Bernandino is a terrorism case, rather than a delusional madman, it does nothing to support or hurts the argument for stricter gun laws.

I was wondering if it actually gives more leeway to circumvent the legislative process and impose new regulations in the name of national security?

Yes, no, maybe so?

Read More

 

[Sstrand]

slimer
Can you say martial law and suspend the Constitution????

Sheldon

 

[41Slinger]

That SH!T don't work in my house.

 

[Medic!]

Maybe we are over the hump?
We know that anyone with a gun can kill us.

But our insistence on self protection has made that point mute!
Try as they might they won't get our personal means of protection!

Sorry.

 

[nammac]

slimer
Can you say martial law and suspend the Constitution????

Sheldon

Come on the liberals aren't quite that bright, don't give 'em any ideas!

 

[nammac]

They can legislate and regulate all they want, the only way they'll get my guns is one round at a time.

I'm right there with you, I think many of us are of that mindset at this point...

 

[BrentN]

This looks to be a prime example of what the NSA was supposed to be looking out for. Terrorist contacts, trips to the middle east, visas. Oh, they're probably too busy watching forums like this one for folks with a rifle barrel a few inches shorter that what is deemed "legal".

 

[rick benjamin]

From time to time, I need to refresh my memory.
What does infringe mean?
break as in a law, rule, or agreement, limit, tie-down, control, legislate, edict, undermine

Shall not be infringed. period.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/break_1

 

[slimmer13]

All I'm saying that is if they can gut the 4th after 9/11, they might go for the 2nd this time.

Something to be watching for.

 

[DMcGPNW]

I believe this angle will be pushed. 2A proponents need to be aware of the rationale. I have read quotes from the president saying, the laws must be changed to make it more difficult for dangerous people to get guns, in response to the shooting. The upshot here being that neither shooter had a criminal history and any restriction based on religion or travel wouldn't pass constitutional muster, so that leaves blanket restrictions.

I heard a discussion on the radio where one of the commentators stated that Americans need to have a discussion on what freedoms we are willing to trade for our security. This discussion has been had before and the answer should remain none if we are to remain a free society.

The "Government" does not exist to protect us. It is the physical manifestation of the will of the people. We protect ourselves, and we must remain free to do so effectively. Call it a failure of high school civics, but there is a growing group who believe the rights of the individual are granted and maintained by the government. We need to remind Americans of civic responsibility and the constant vigilance needed to maintain a free society.

Rant Finished