Assault Rifles to See the President

As it is.......

 

Crabtown is only sharing or emphasizing the first half of the 2nd amendment. Had that been the intent, weapons would have long ago been confiscated from the people such as when the constitution was ratified. But, one cannot expect a progressive to understand a simple amendment. They can't help but to add their bleeding heart spin to it.

 

More fitting would be to give military fire arms (rifles) the nomenclature of "DR" Defensive Rifle.


HankD

 

Nope -- the mission of the United States Army is to kill people and break things as commanded by competent authority.

As Patton said, "We are on the offensive -- there's no 'holding' anything."

:thumbsup:

 

This is/was the official "common defense" oath I took and all others have taken upon enlisting.

HankD

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

black dude with the AR~irony at its best:thumbsup:

..appears to be a "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy"...

 

yeah, yeah, yeah -- don't contradict Patton with bureaucractese...

:tongue3:

 

According to Texas state law, there is no prohibition against me carrying my loaded and concealed Ruger 380 into the presence of the President.

But I do believe it would be a bad idea. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I find it interesting there is no federal law concerning weapons near the president. If the fellow did not have a weapon on him, but made a verbal thread he would have been arrested. Verbal threads are a federal offense.

 

I agree completely.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "open carry" for certain safety and tactical reasons, but the media tend to see gun owners as people who are prone to shoot anyone they don't like.

The man didn't shoot anyone and did not seem to be threatening anyone with his rifle. Only people with an irrational fear of guns would have been nervous by the way he was photographed carrying it.

 

I'm a Progressive who believes in the right to bear arms. I have several firearms and I love to shoot them. My favorite is my stainless steel Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum. If fact, in my younger days I reloaded my own ammunition. So, don't assume that all progressives hate guns.

 

And that's bad.............because.......? :laugh:

 

I am not sure what constitution you are thinking about. Here is the entire Article II

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii


That is the entire words of the Second Amendment. What were you talking about? It appears you do not know your Constitution.

 

The courts have decided that it applies not just to a militia but to law abiding citizens... You can quote the constitution but your inference that it only applies to a state militia is wrong.

 

I was replying to SAG who said I had only given the first half of the amendment. He was wrong.

Yes, it has been ruled to apply to private citizens that they may own guns. I do not think it has been ruled that means they can carry them anywhere they want, i.e. public schools for instance, onto airplanes, etc. If you want to test this carry one the next time you visit the White House.

 

They can't. There are state laws to govern where and when,

Ever heard of state's rights?

The 10th amendment is still part of the Constitution.

 

This is an interesting problem in law, as firearms laws are inconsistent across the country. Thus a person with a concealed carry permit becomes guilty of a felony when the drive across the Maryland line with a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

Pennsylvania state law trumps local statutes, therefore various local ordinances meant to restrict gun ownership are routinely struck down when appealed.

Unfortunately, the same does not hold true for Federal laws that affect firearms.

 

I was divided on this one. I voted no, only because it could be viewed as a potential threat. Police officers can't even enter a court room with their weapons because someone else could get ahold of it & use it.

Other than that, I wouldn't see a problem with it.

I thought it was interesting in the past. When George H.W. Bush went to visit the troops during Operation Desert Storm, they weren't unarmed. When Bill Clinton went to visit troops (anywhere), they were always unarmed.

 

Perhaps the problem in understanding is in knowing what the term and concept of a 'militia' was at the writing of the constitution of the US and what it means now......

When the Constitution was written..... it was not considered necessary that the US provide for a standing army. This was considered to be the responsibility of each state to provide for its own defense.... and if the country was threatened, to send men to fight on behalf of the country. The only military for which there was provision was a Navy. Ships in that time (and even today) took time to build, required regular maintanance.... were of little use if always in port until after a response or defense was needed.... and it took time to train crewmen in navigation and the discipline and confidence in the skipper and the craft to make good sailors.

As for the weapons of war..... some states required that every able man be armed and if called to duty to serve in the state's militia, during time of emergency or whatever.... to provide their weapon and whatever amo they had on hand. Some were subject to a fine if they showed for duty but had no weapon. While they had sheriffs in each country ..... and a magistrate.... often times what law enforcement that followed as back up was deputized citizens who had to furnish their own weapons.


=====================

Yes..... I think it is a right to open carry..... particularly where this is the law. When there are limits... as I agree that there should be around important functions where the statue of a person might make him a target.... I agree that weapons should be off limits.... but the boundaries should also be clear.

==============

The real question which concerns people today.... is the moral conditioning of a person who is armed or in a position to threaten, hurt, or kill another. We, perhaps, would have greater confidence and less fear of our fellow countryman if we still had more moral teacking in the schools and homes, and less violence on tv and video games........ and more integrity from top down to back up. However, as another poster noted, what is considered to be 'armed' may not refer to a gun or rifle ...... but whatever a person possesses which through his training and experience can be used to assault or kill another...... even his hands. Now, noone would suggest that we cut off people's hands even though certain martial arts and practices may have given one the ability to disable or kill others without additional acoutriments.