Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

And IF whoever happens to get elected finds that whatever steps NEEDING to be taken (or even if they find that no matter what they do, the crap is going to REALLY hit the fan anyway) will pretty much put the American public in a highly aggravated and agitated state of mind, don't you think they may very well think that trying to take guns AWAY from the population to keep them from actually USING them against the bozos in that half square area of Maryland that got us into this mess, might be wise to try to save their own skins?

There is a REAL good chance that there is no way out of the hole we have all been pushed into without some VERY VERY painful changes in our lifestyles. Suppose you find out that your life savings is now worthless? That you now have to work for nearly nothing because taxes take nearly all of it away? The government has been taking way too many free lunches for way to long and just putting the bill on a tab that they thought they would never have to pay while THEY were still in office.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but quite frankly, my interpretation of ANY major move by the government to disarm the public will be that things are REALLY REALLY going to get bad for ALL of us REAL soon. I would hope that everyone who really enjoys what is left of our freedoms and wants to keep them, would fight such a move tooth and nail...

I'm not so jaded that I think they won't have time. Like Rich said, tooth and nail, man. Tooth and nail. Same goes for my birds they're always trying to sneak in a ban on, and my snakes.

Originally Posted by KelliH

What people are you referring to, Varnyard?

Now, now. Here is the whole paragraph.

Lock up the thugs and throw away the key. They let them run the streets and let them out of jail time after time, they teach the children to do the same time after time, that has nothing all to do with guns, but in fact the people behind them. These people need to teach their children respect, but instead they let them run the house and run the streets even as young as seven years old.

Clearly he was making a statement about thugs, Criminals. Taking one line out of paragraph about criminals and highlighting "these people" seems like a little race baiting to me. You think someone could state their opinion on crime and firearms without this happening.

Most politicians words carry little weight. I look at the voting record.

Obama's voting record in the Illinois senate leaves no doubt. He is absolutely for banning all firearms for all citizens.

Originally Posted by dprince

Not that this isn't an important issue, but I'm not entirely convinced that WHOEVER gets elected is even going to have time, or the burning desire, to deal with gun control? It hasn't even really been brought up during the campaigning, and with all of the other GINORMOUS issues that this country is facing, I really hope to heavens that they are focused on things like the economy, the deficit, our health care system, social security, our overseas military involvement, etc...........before either of them focuses on this issue.

Originally Posted by KelliH

You aren't kidding they aren't going to have time to focus on gun control. Whichever one gets elected is inheriting a huge mess.

I think things change at two points. When issues become important to most and when they become the least important.

I have no doubt at some point enough people will not care enough about the issue. A lot may even ask for it and welcome it. Heck, one day the majority of those that welcome it might have the power and the will to "change" it. The White House, Congress, Supreme Court, people not focusing on or caring enough about this particular issue. Oh, wait a minute...

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Most politicians words carry little weight. I look at the voting record.

Obama's voting record in the Illinois senate leaves no doubt. He is absolutely for banning all firearms for all citizens.

Exactly. He has repeatedly fought for firearm BANNING, not control. His agenda has been made clear for years. Not that McCain hasn't been in on some of that himself.

"Cold dead fingers"

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

I have no doubt at some point enough people will not care enough about the issue. A lot may even ask for it and welcome it. Heck, one day the majority of those that welcome it might have the power and the will to "change" it. The White House, Congress, Supreme Court, people not focusing on or caring enough about this particular issue.

The time is well on it's way, sadly enough. I believe that the last stats I looked at on gun ownership said it was around 39% of Americans. Down a great deal from when we were young.
And perhaps that is the way it should be in all aspects. The next generation is now shaping their world as we shaped ours for our middle ages.
I may not be comfortable with what our next generation finds acceptable or unacceptable but I/we are on the down hill slide and the world is soon to be theirs with our beliefs as only vague guidelines just as our world is only a scant reflection of the world set down by the founders of our nation.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

I think things change at two points. When issues become important to most and when they become the least important.

I have no doubt at some point enough people will not care enough about the issue. A lot may even ask for it and welcome it. Heck, one day the majority of those that welcome it might have the power and the will to "change" it. The White House, Congress, Supreme Court, people not focusing on or caring enough about this particular issue. Oh, wait a minute...

While you may be right about the "points of change" (makes perfect sense to me), I honestly CAN'T imagine that enough people won't care about this issue. Maybe I'm naive, but geez, just reading this thread, and knowing a wide variety of people, I highly doubt that most people would become apathetic to something that is so clearly defined in the Constitution. While folks may disagree on the extent of what "the right to bear arms" means, no one denies it's there. If the government tried to ban all guns, there would anarchy, plain and simple. It's political suicide for ANY politician to want to ban ALL weapons, because even most people I know that are either for gun control, or not opposed to it, believe in the right to HAVE guns, even if they don't.

I have seen Obama's voting record on this issue, and while it's clear that he is for gun control, I didn't see anywhere that he was for banning all guns (if anyone can guide me there, that'd be great. ) John McCain's record is definitely less gun control, but he also hasn't always voted anti-gun control, either.

And yes, I am a gun owner.

It is interesting to note that our forefathers, meaning the people who created this country through the US Constitution, were FULLY aware of the danger of the "tyranny of the majority". Which is why this county was created NOT as a Democracy, but as a Constitutional Republic. Meaning that a simple majority CANNOT override the dictates listed within the Constitution that are the basis of all our laws. It takes a SUPER majority to create an amendment to negate the primary laws of this country.

And yes, I believe that if the majority of the gun laws are put to a TRUE test of Constitutional compliance by a completely unbiased and fair supreme court, they WILL be found to be unconstitutional. And although perhaps you and I may not agree with such a strict interpretation, it is what it is, nonetheless. Personally, I would rather not see ex-felons being able to obtain guns, nor someone with the financial backing being able to buy a nuclear weapon. But with a STRICT reading and understanding of what the Second Amendment states, neither of these can LEGALLY be restricted. Certainly there were criminals when the Second Amendment was created, which most certainly our forefathers MUST have considered them in their ponderings. And as well, canon and warships, as well as explosives were readily available and certainly used to wrest control of this country from England. Yet there was no mention of limiting the Second Amendment to applying to only lesser types of weaponry. Quite frankly, with the purpose of the Second Amendment being to protect this country from ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic (with domestic likely meaning a government that has gone bad), it just would not make sense for them to put any restriction on the types of weapons allowed the citizenry in the light of the government being allowed the most powerful of weapons, and the citizens themselves DENIED such access.

They KNEW there was a possibility that the government they created may very well become the tyranny they had just escaped and feared might rise again because of what they created. Yes, they put in a lot of safeguards, but they could not be psychic enough to cover every eventuality. The Bill of Rights with the first 10 Amendments was put in place EXACTLY because many representatives of the states felt that the Constitution itself didn't do ENOUGH to protect the people from this new government being created. So how anyone can interpret the Second Amendment as being flexible enough to say that the people cannot have weapons that are available to the government completely baffles me. The Second Amendment was put there precisely to keep that from happening.

I think the forefathers didn't HAVE to worry as much about criminals. When someone did attack another and kill them, it was quickly determined whether it was murder or not, and taken care of. There was not the numerous excuses of "He wasn't loved enough as a baby" and "He's just a gang member, he's young..."
The more violence someone gets away with, the more violent they will become. Now we have people who go on long years of shooting up neighborhoods, and attacking people to steal... and they end up on the streets again.
I think people back then were also not such sheep to allow such behavior either. Now people wring their hands and say "Well.. we can't do anything to prevent it" while then it was more likely that the culprit would end up beaten bloody the first time.
Just my opinion.