NRA: On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

[haldir]

I haven't talked to any right thinking American that is excited about McCain. I have talked to a lot of kool aid drinking true believers that are really excited about Obama. I have struggled with the idea of teaching the GOP leaders a lesson by voting for Bob Barr this time on the Libertarian ticket. I just don't know if we can risk the damage that a government with Dems controlling both houses of Congress and the White House could inflict upon us. In addition to the problems with guns, this guy wants to make our soldiers subject to prosecution in the Hague, he wants to send $800 billion to the UN... and the list goes on.

[Steelman]

Well I wish you all the best in selecting you candidate this year. It's a tough choice for gun owners any way you look at it.

I guess I'm just a bitter Libertarian.

Maybe after 4 years of McCain or Obama you guys might be interested in voting 3rd party. Wishful thinking - I'm sure.

I cannot endorse Bobb Barr whole-heartedly due to his complete 180 on his political beliefs.

Once again - best of luck!

[Sphynx]

What, exactly, do you think the 2nd Amendment is? It doesn't begin and end at "A right to bear Arms". It begins with the right to have a Militia, which in these days means the right to protect your own home from hostile forces. It ends with giving "The People" a right to bear arms, not "Every Person".

The oath of a President is to uphold the Constitution as written, not as translated by those who seek the most out of it.

I do not object to more and better gun control. Get guns off the streets and back into the homes and for hunting. Require that people be responsible in order to bear arms.

[RonPaulSupporter]

Originally Posted by Sphynx

It ends with giving "The People" a right to bear arms, not "Every Person". The oath of a President is to uphold the Constitution as written, not as translated by those who seek the most out of it.

So when the 1st Amendment says "the right of the people to peacefully assemble.." the 4th Amendment says "the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.." does that mean not "every person" (as you say) has those rights? The Constitution gives "the People" (meaning ALL people) the right to keep and bear arms. That means you can hunt, target shoot, carry for self defense, etc. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not "living documents" that we redefine to fit our political views, they mean EXACTLY what they say.

[BloodEclipse]

Originally Posted by Sphynx

I do not object to more and better gun control. Get guns off the streets and back into the homes and for hunting. Require that people be responsible in order to bear arms.

Wow, this is the last thing I thought that I would ever see on an Indiana Gun Forum.

Sphynx are you a gun owner? If that picture is of yourself, I assume that is your child? Who's responsibility is it to protect that child?
Our society? The police? Or perhaps that responsibility would fall to YOU?

You seem to think that better gun control would somehow make those who break the law and prey upon others suddenly say to themselves "Gee this is better gun control I think I'll start obeying the law and not bring harm to others".

So knowing that there really are BAD people in the world, who do bring harm to others, the question is how do you best protect yourself and your loved ones?

Having a gun at home is a start and might work if you never left the house. Thinking nothing ever bad could happen to you is a big gamble. I'm sure you want to be around to watch your family grow.
So what is your plan. How do you protect yourself and your loved ones. Giving some thought to it, is what you are doing really being responsible enough?

I know that nothing means more to me than my family and there is no length I won't go to ensure their safety.

Also I take issue with your interpretation of the 2nd. The Bill of rights are about individual rights not States rights. If you haven't read the recent Supreme Court ruling on Heller I suggest you do.

[Sphynx]

We as a people have a right to assemble peacefully, a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and a right to bear arms. All true. Also true, Loitering is a crime despite the 1st amendment. Group vagrancy is a crime despite the 1st amendment. Airport security can still go through luggage despite the 4th amendment. Point being, these 'rights' always have limitations. We as a 'people' may all own and bear arms, and I'd be happy for it, as long as the limitations that provide security to me are set in place, such as a held-responsibility, a removal of that right when abused, etc, etc.

Rights should only be rights to a point, and if you were a Squatter instead of a hard-core gun-clinging NRA member, you'd push for the expansion of the 1st amendment to allow Loitering and grouped vagrancy. The key is to maintain a perspective that makes the entirety of the constitution equally limited and right-giving.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by Sphynx

We as a 'people' may all own and bear arms, and I'd be happy for it, as long as the limitations that provide security to me are set in place, such as a held-responsibility, a removal of that right when abused, etc, etc.

Your comment in bold above tells me quite a bit about you.
Someday your views will change and I hope you haven't lost too
much freedom by then.

[Justus]

Sphynx:
I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
You're implying the 2nd amendment is the only one worded
in such a way as not to be an individual right.

Also, you might want to re-evaluate the last 4 words ".....shall not be infringed"
Aren't there enough gun control laws on the books?
Can you think of any more that would solve the crime problem?
Maybe you should research the Cook county and Wash DC laws to see
how well the additional restrictions work to reduce crime.
Chicago recently reported their highest level yet of gun violence despite
enacting some of the strictest gun control in the country, gun control that
Obama was instrumental in creating.

According to your logic, laws creating speech control would be the answer
to offensive comments protected under the 1st amendment.

You might also want to visit the Indiana constitution.

I see by your previous posts that you are an Obama supporter.
You and I are on different sides of the table on many subjects.

[Sphynx]

What do you think it tells you about me? I've had enough guns pulled on me to assure you my views will not change. There are people who simply should not have guns, and as long as they are in possession of such weapons, people who see them as devices with which to threaten, devices to commit crimes with, devices to vent ones emotions with, as long as people die because some vigilante with a permit to have a handgun took the law into his own hands in a situation where nobody should have died, I will have that opinion.

[Justus]

Sphinx:
You didn't answer my question:
How would more gun control solve this issue?

Do you really think more laws would work to stop someone
with no respect for the law?
(the answer can be found in Chicago and DC)

Do you know of any permit holders that have become vigilantes
or is that just a passionate emotional statement?

For some reason I think you are an Obama campaigner trolling the gun boards.