Where does the "they want to take our guns" paranoia come from?

[BucciMane]

You didn't answer me when I asked : How did Obama disrespect the military? When did he show less than 100% respect?

Didn't see your post from earlier. I'm not going to type out paragraph after paragraph here, but I'll list a few:

-VA scandal. He had no problem seeing veterans suffering and dying.
-His treatment of Ft. Hood calling it workplace violence and refusing to meet with survivors and the victims families.
-Went out of his way to make sure veterans could not visit the WWII memorial during the government shutdown. He made a specific point to make sure they could not visit.
-Has completely cut military spending to levels we haven't seen in a long time, and has no problem with old weapons and technology, putting our military at risk.
-Terminating employment of those overseas until waiting until they came back home.
-Numerous AWFUL prisoner swaps.

These are just a few off the top of my head, but the VA scandal is inexcusable.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Breh outside of the Assault Weapons ban which is logical imo, what have dems done to restrict firearm access on the national level?

They haven't had much success thanks to Republican obstruction, but if Dems control the White House and Congress again, it's coming. Hillary is about to be elected tomorrow and she ran perhaps the most anti-gun campaign in recent presidential history

The virtual repeal of the 2nd Amendment that's gone on in several states over the decades (NJ, now CA) signals what the end goal is

 

[StatUS]

It's irrational fear. The Dems just don't want idiots and psychos to easily possess devices strictly meant for killing.

Biggest issue I have is their ignoraning of the militarization of law enforcement. Two way street.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

They think the population will be disarmed, everyone will be forced to wear the "Mark of the Beast," Christianity will be outlawed, and the US will give up its sovereignty to join a one-world government ruled by the Antichrist. This is a common, widespread belief, not limited to the fringes and fundies. Jack Chick was dropping tracts on this in the 60's, I'm telling you.

 

[Broke Wave]

Didn't see your post from earlier. I'm not going to type out paragraph after paragraph here, but I'll list a few:

-VA scandal. He had no problem seeing veterans suffering and dying.
-His treatment of Ft. Hood calling it workplace violence and refusing to meet with survivors and the victims families.
-Went out of his way to make sure veterans could not visit the WWII memorial during the government shutdown. He made a specific point to make sure they could not visit.
-Has completely cut military spending to levels we haven't seen in a long time, and has no problem with old weapons and technology, putting our military at risk.
-Terminating employment of those overseas until waiting until they came back home.
-Numerous AWFUL prisoner swaps.

These are just a few off the top of my head, but the VA scandal is inexcusable.

Hold on. The VA was inherited by Obama from Bush in its poor state. As far as Ft Hood, he said it was POSSIBLE it was workplace related, and then said it was a terror attack after the information fully came out.

The ww2 memorial government shutdown situation that seems like utter nonsense. If you can find an objective non partisan source for that, I will take all your points and not argue.

He cut military spending in what's called a sequester. It's part of the deficit reduction as Obama has decreased the deficit by a Trillion dollars. Also, he had to reduce the spending from Pre War levels. Remember, there were 2 wars Raging in 2008.

As far as Terminating employment and prisoner swaps, I can't comment on those I don't know about all that.


But just food for thought, is Obama more disrespectful to the troops than Bush? Who sent 10's of thousands of troops to be maimed, killed and wounded for a war that he almost certainly lied to get? A war that didn't benefit America whatsoever? A war that the troops were led to believe was as a result of 9/11? Isn't that the gravest disrespect of the troops?

 

[thekingsmen]

 

[Broke Wave]

They haven't had much success thanks to Republican obstruction, but if Dems control the White House and Congress again, it's coming. Hillary is about to be elected tomorrow and she ran perhaps the most anti-gun campaign in recent presidential history

The virtual repeal of the 2nd Amendment that's gone on in several states over the decades (NJ, now CA) signals what the end goal is

Actually, restrictive gun laws are not a repeal of the second amendment. You should read the second amendment. Yes, I understand that the interpretation now is that citizens may bare arms, and I respect that right in the American context, however it is less protected by the second amendment and more protected by the will of the populous.

 

[Broke Wave]

You live in Canada. Michael Moore told me you keep your doors open

Either way, I don't think the government is coming for peoples guns. I also agree that if the govt turned tyrannical what could the people do against predator drones and armormed humvees with 50 caliber machine guns?

 

[Black Hans]

In the 90s, there was legislation for gun control by banning non-handguns. Hence, the "taking our guns" rhetoric.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Actually, restrictive gun laws are not a repeal of the second amendment. You should read the second amendment. Yes, I understand that the interpretation now is that citizens may bare arms, and I respect that right in the American context, however it is less protected by the second amendment and more protected by the will of the populous.

"shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language to me

NJ has effectively repealed the 2nd Amendment through a combination of restrictive ownership and possession laws and its "may issue" doctrine. CA is out here trying to restrict gun ownership to 18th century style muskets.

I am for reasonable restrictions. Like people convicted of domestic abuse and other violent crimes should have their gun rights revoked. And background checks. But this other BS only serves to disarm the populace. I do not wish to live in a racialized capitalist society where only the government has arms.

 

[Broke Wave]

"shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language to me

NJ has effectively repealed the 2nd Amendment through a combination of restrictive ownership and possession laws and its "may issue" doctrine. CA is out here trying to restrict gun ownership to 18th century style muskets.

I am for reasonable restrictions. Like people convicted of domestic abuse and other violent crimes should have their gun rights revoked. And background checks. But this other BS only serves to disarm the populace. I do not wish to live in a racialized capitalist society where only the government has arms.

What shall not be infringed? I know you know what I'm talking about.

That being said I agree with gun ownership in the American context. However using the 2nd Amendment as cover as you know is very weak.

 

[JahFocus CS]

What shall not be infringed? I know you know what I'm talking about.

That being said I agree with gun ownership in the American context. However using the 2nd Amendment as cover as you know is very weak.

Breh...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed."

Again, that is quite clear to me. For all intents and purposes, excessive restrictions are tantamount to infringements. Having "may issue" doctrines is tantamount to an infringement. If there was a "may observe" doctrine where the gov selectively recognized the 1st Amendment, people would rightly recognize it as a violation of the Constitution

 

[Broke Wave]

Breh...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed."

Again, that is quite clear to me. For all intents and purposes, excessive restrictions are tantamount to infringements. Having "may issue" doctrines is tantamount to an infringement. If there was a "may observe" doctrine where the gov selectively recognized the 1st Amendment, people would rightly recognize it as a violation of the Constitution

Sigh, don't make me go into this with you. You're too intelligent my breh but lets break this down.

You can't dismiss the words well regulated militia. Of course you know what a well regulated militia constituted prior and subsequent to the 1789 ratification of the Bill of Rights, right? The only militias in America at that time were formed to protect whites from slaves and to capture run away slaves. Therefore there is no explicit allowance for arms to be born OUTSIDE of the militia. The Heller decision in 2008 even upheld this, however it stated that a weapon can be held at home in the pursuit of a regulated militia. That is the extent to which the 2nd amendment protects gun laws. All other gun laws and gun rights are NOT protected by the 2nd amendment. There is no constitutional basis for those claims.

 

[Scholar]

Honestly at this point even if these folks have guns and the gov takeover that they fear so much happened they wouldn't be able to do anything. What is a gun going to do to a drone?

 

[JahFocus CS]

Honestly at this point even if these folks have guns and the gov takeover that they fear so much happened they wouldn't be able to do anything. What is a gun going to do to a drone?

Can drones hold territory?

No, they cannot.

Unless and until there are bulletproof robots as cops and military (at which point oppression will be pretty close to being etched into stone forever), firearms will always be relevant in resisting oppression