Obama said it! Assault weapons ban

[fd15k]

The sad thing in that it seems that Our country is controlled by two groups...and not by The People.

You mean corporations and corporations ?

 

[fd15k]

You might also look into Paul Ryans views on Firearms and Hunting. The guys so into hunting sports he took time off campaigning to take his 10 year old daughter on her first rifle deer hunt. His Phone has a Camo cover on it and his Secret Service code name is BOWMAN.

So at least there will be someone connected with Romneys admin that knows something about firearms.

Yes, I also believe you have a right to own a bow OKay, okay... right to own a double-barreled and shoot Dicks with it! I mean Ducks... ducks...

 

[Father of four]

Right to a public place ? Eh ? I of course know what you mean - you believe there is a right to carry a firearm anywhere you like (without "permission"). Well, maybe there is such right, I haven't seen any evidence of its existence yet.

No I am not saying anywhere. But to give certain people the right just because they fill out an application, pay a fee, take a class and ask nicely seems a bit odd to be considered equal with the 2nd Amendment Right.

 

[FarmerTed1971]

What's a "sporting rifle"? My rifles were made to kill things... that's not a sport.
Stupid PC world we live in.

 

[Father of four]

You mean corporations and corporations ?

Republicans and Democrats.

 

[dmancornell]

You mean corporations and corporations ?

LOL, implying corporations have a monopoly on violence and control of the fiat currency.

You lefties and your fixation over corporations is downright pathetic.

 

[fd15k]

No I am not saying anywhere. But to give certain people the right just because they fill out an application, pay a fee, take a class and ask nicely seems a bit odd to be considered equal with the 2nd Amendment Right.

Did you just say the right to carry is not unlimited (place restrictions) ?

 

[Father of four]

Did you just say the right to carry is not unlimited (place restrictions) ?

There are sure. Let The People decide where and when.

 

[fd15k]

There are sure. Let The People decide where and when.

And how do you label one set of restrictions as appropriate, while others are not ? What kind of test do you apply ?

 

[Father of four]

It is not a test. The People should decide by vote if They want restrictions to the 2nd. Not a few congressmen or the government alone.

When the government decides for The People we are no longer free men.

 

[fd15k]

It is not a test. The People should decide by vote if They want restrictions to the 2nd. Not a few congressmen or the government alone.

When the government decides for The People we are no longer free men.

We are Republic, not a Democracy. We elect representatives, and they project the will of the people. Now, that being said, you still have an option to apply Direct Democracy - you can put any measure on a ballot, and have the people decide.

 

[Father of four]

If one of these guys makes it as President and the one decides that he, his administration and the congress wants to ban automatic firearms or all firearms as a whole do We the People just let them do it. Is not this Country for the People and by the People?

 

[Father of four]

We are Republic, not a Democracy. We elect representatives, and they project the will of the people. Now, that being said, you still have an option to apply Direct Democracy - you can put any measure on a ballot, and have the people decide.

Really? You think that? Have you seen the polls that agree with that? The People are not in agreement with how the Representatives are doing things.

 

[fd15k]

If one of these guys makes it as President and the one decides that he, his administration and the congress wants to ban automatic firearms or all firearms as a whole do We the People just let them do it. Is not this Country for the People and by the People?

I think People can have anything done their way in the end. Most of the People don't care either way though, so there you have it

 

[fd15k]

Really? You think that? Have you seen the polls that agree with that? The People are not in agreement with how the Representatives are doing things.

If you don't agree, then impeach, recall, etc. Why do I have to teach you basic civics ?

 

[Father of four]

 

[Grunwald]

It is not a test. The People should decide by vote if They want restrictions to the 2nd. Not a few congressmen or the government alone.

When the government decides for The People we are no longer free men.

The Constitution is not something that can be changed nor its rights limited by popular vote of the people. There is a process to amend it, and it is the only acceptable way to make changes to it. The process is difficult by design, in order to prevent mob rule.

 

[Father of four]

The Constitution is not something that can be changed nor its rights limited by popular vote of the people. There is a process to amend it, and it is the only acceptable way to make changes to it. The process is difficult by design, in order to prevent mob rule.

Its not the changing of the Constitution that i am really referring to. It is the right of the people to determine what is right. The government determining what is right for us...is not right.

But as the Deceleration of Independence states.... if The People want to do away with the Constitution it is their right...not the governments.

 

[Father of four]

The government should be doing the will of The People.

 

[gehrheart]

The only limit I could give into is on privet property of another (not a business open to the public.) I strongly believe in property rights and if the owner didn't want guns carried they have that right..
Beyond that I do not see where there is any place in the 2nd the allows for limits, permissions, types, or anything beyond the right to bear them.
I see it as Document set into stone, not a living document. Its sad that as a country we have allowed our government to destroy IT! and the people just back and allow it.. some even wanting it.. some even thinks its good...