You said Obama isn't trying to make life safer and that he is trying to strip liberty. That IS arguable. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that it is some sort of conspiracy where Obama is out to just snatch our liberties for no reason.
I would think those wishing to enjoy a beer on the road would disagree with you:
Executive Order 12358
by President of the United States
Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Ronald_Reagan/Executive_orders
Then again, I suppose there is difference between an executive order meant to safeguard the citizenry from being killed, and one attempting to safeguard the citizenry from being killed.
Oh...wait....uh............
Neither is Obama's... Obama isn't out there like "hey everyone, I'm gonna strip your liberties".
Challenge him in the courts then and let them decide. I don't think he is violating the 2nd amendment.
there is no constitutional amendment giving you the right to drink and drive.
uhh... Wait... Nothing.
He is infringing upon it. the courts obey us, meaning the constitution. If they support the magical assault weapons ban executive order they have failed to do their duty.
Let's put this in context first. You can't just say you are right because you are right. This is a matter of interpreting the Constitution. You interpret it different than I do. They are both subjective interpretations. Our legal system is setup so the courts decide. What they find is what stands. If they agree with my interpretation, that doesn't mean they failed to do their duty and if you think it does, that just means you are being a sore loser because they didn't agree with you.
Show me where Obama said that. I think it is quite clear that his goal is to try to prevent a Sandy Hook-like event. Now whether or not this actually does that is another issue, but he isn't the evil grinch out to steal everyone's liberty. That does not seem to be his intent. You call the assault weapons term sensationalist and perhaps it is, but you misrepresenting the views of those who you don't agree with (Obama) is just as bad if not worse.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed, cannot be interpreted to say the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed. Anymore than the first amendment can be interpreted to say that all citizens must be Catholic.
you can't interpret "must not be infringed" to mean "must be infringed" sorry this debate was over in 1776 when they wrote it.
Nor is there anything, anywhere in the constitution giving you the right to own grenades, rocket launchers, c-4, nuclear explosives, or fighter aircraft...but we as a society would likely frown upon such a thing. We are also faced with the fact these weapons not only did not exist...but were not imagined as possible at the time.
It is unlikely any "Well Regulated Militia" would be allowed to be armed with such. Unless you fall into the crowd expecting (Or Preparing For) the upcoming military takeover of the United States there is no logical reason to be armed with such weapons.
And...to be honest, if you are the mental health aspect of the actions will likely find you anyway.
Prevent that type of incident by stealing liberties from everybody? Terrible idea. killing 26 people was already illegal, his pathetic attempt to Tac on an absurd notion of an assault weapons ban is nothing.
an assault weapons ban will not stop anything. There has been a murder ban for centuries. That works wonderfully doesn't it
Of I can buy an assault weapon now bit not next year my right to bear and keep ATMs has been infringed upon.
His goal is not to steal liberties. A lot of laws limit things we can do, but at the same time it is possible that they make other liberties possible- that argument can be made in this case too. But even then, the goal is not to steal liberties! I don't know why you have to misrepresent his view because you don't agree with him...
As for an assault weapons ban not working, show me the data, or it is just intuitive opinion. I am not sure the data is even out there- which is why the removal of a ban of Federal funding for gun violence studies is good. Let's learn more about this before jumping to conclusions.
By the way clax...you may want to have a chat with the guys that are issued these non-existent "Assault" weapons....looks like they haven't heard the news yet:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/AK-47_Operator's_Manual
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/AK-47_Operator's_Manual
keep and near arms, that means arms, not only arms that existed in the 18th century. If he was signing an order saying we couldn't own jet fighters your argument would be valid. Assault weapons don't exist now nor have they ever that is just a fabrication. Banning rifles, they did exist so yes this is very much a protection of the second amendment.
There is plenty poof reason to be armed with an AK 47 or an AR 15, tactical advantage, enough said there is no logic in giving up tactical advantage for some media sensationalism of a statistically non existent possibility.
Similar threads
