Obama and the Second Amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3991

OBAMA VOTED AGAINST LEGISLATION IN 2004 TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERS WHO USED A FIREARM FOR PROTECTION IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF HOME INVASION!

Must see - Obama is an anti-gun leftist.  This is NOT change we can believe in.

Oh, you can believe in it amerifags, especially when the nigger gets in office.

No, >>2, YOU are the niggers....YOU...

Americans don't actually use guns to protect themselves. They just need them to feel manly.

>>1

Alright? Considering a landmark Supreme Court case has passed concerning guns. It's not like he can do anything about it even as president.

>>2
and then >>2 was  a zombie

>>5
"Alright? Considering a landmark Supreme Court case has passed concerning guns. It's not like he can do anything about it even as president."

The decision was 5-4.  The next president is expected to be able to appoint many Federal judges.  This is significant as this will determine how broadly or narrowly the right will be defined.  If enough judges step down, its possible he could reshape the court so radically that the decision would be overturned.  All it would take is for ONE of the five who voted properly on the court to step down...

>>7

Correct, and half of them are going to have to retire in the next five-ten years anyway.  Although gun control is one of the few issues where I take an unambiguously 'conservative' stance, the selection of president in the 2008 election promises to have a significant effect on the judicial branch, on way or the other.

>>8
And any judicial nominee one millimeter to the right of Earl Warren will get borked by the Democrats in Congress, cheerfully aided and abetted by the liberal jewsmedia.

There is a blogger who calls himself Mencius Moldbug, who has a theory that explains everything about American politics pretty damn well.

The real decisions that affect people's lives aren't made by Congress.  They are made by ideologues in places like the sociology department at Berkeley and the law department at Yale, written into "scientific" reality by other ideologues and then passed into law by the Inner Party, whom you know as the Democrats and the left-wing fringe kook judges they wish to put on the Supreme Junta, from whom there is no recourse, whose will is imposed by men with uniforms and guns.

The Outer Party, whom you know as the Republicans, are kept around mainly to be despised bogeymen that CNN and the Jew York Times can tell you are Thugs! Bullies! Extremists! Bigots! Plotting to overthrow civilization! But actually all they ever do is grumble a little for the cameras, then nudge and wink knowingly at their comrades of the Inner Party and go along with the program, even when they hold both houses of Congress plus the Presidency.

If you think you're living in anything resembling a democracy, you need to get your head examined.  What you want doesn't matter, and if voting could change anything they'd make it illegal.

Gun Control is for the good of the nation.  Hitler, Mao, and Stalin agreed, don't bother them about it.

>>10
Hitler breathed therefore breathing is evil. Enjoy your death.

>>11
Everyone breathes.  You made no point whatsoever.  But not everyone is a gun-grabbing, anti-Constitution Fascist.

>>12
The point was showing how stupid that retarded reductio ad hitlerum was, but I see that you are sensitive when it comes to guns, I presume to issues related to your insufficient manhood.

>>13
The sensitivity here is yours.  The Second Amendment is still the law of the land regardless of your gay-assed fear of it.  Those who seek to avoid lawful canceling of the Second Amendment are only Fascists.  Their regard for the rule of law is ZERO.  (That's why it's utterly moral to kill them.)

Remember, you Liberal fuckfags have recourse to the law.  You can CHANGE the US Constitution.  You can REMOVE the Second Amendment.  So, get crackin' on that, Libfags.  Your Messiah Obama says "CHANGE" a lot, doesn't he?  So, CHANGE the US Constitution ... lawfully, and in line with the clearly established procedures for doing so.

By continuing to rely on mob rule for your gun-grabbin' ways, you're only showing yourselves to be Fascists like the National Socialists in 1930s Germany.

>>10

>Gun Control is for the good of the nation.
>Hitler, Mao, and Stalin agreed

Enough with that putrid-con punditry.
Hitler never practiced gun control, at least not confiscation.

http://heretical.org/pubs/heinz.html

I guess the idea is to make the following association:

Leftists = Nazis = Anti-semantics = Unamericans

I'm not buying it.

>>15 "Hitler never practiced gun control"

wat

So, do you have any source for that other than what looks like some kind of bizarre Holocaust-denier page?

>>15
>Leftists = Nazis = Anti-semantics = Unamericans
Yeah, that's the whole point.
In other news;

Hitler and Stalin had a mustache - the US Constitution doesn't say anything about a mustache, therefore you are unamerican nazi-commie (because in retard-grade logic, they are the same too) if you have a mustache.

>>15
>>17

No you stupid fuckers.  It's more like:

Lefties = gun grabbers =
"Fuck you and your right to defend yourself!  It doesn't matter that you and your family will be dead before the police arrive, they're the only ones we can trust with guns.  We don't care if your mother gets raped in a dark alley, she can't be trusted with a tool to defend herself!  It doesn't matter that areas with strict gun control have more violent crimes (DC anyone?), our pussies shrivel up with fear to think that anyone but a roided out police officer could be carrying a gun.  WE NEED MORE LAWS BECAUSE IF WE MAKE THEM TOUGHER CRIMINALS WILL FOLLOW THEM!!!!"

I full agree, your American Second Ammendment is absurd. Giving civilians the option of having firearms is a dangerous and insane choice. Not only should they not have them, but there should be no reason for them to have it.

The only reason the Second Ammendment is even in place is because America doesn't understand how to run a country, the government is required to provide the security so that their people do not need to defend themselves.

Believe or not America, but the leftist view is superior because it shows a caring hand instead of the slap you've given your people and their illusion of 'right'.

>>19
We will not need to defend ourselves after the niggers and spics are rounded up and "liquidated."

>>19
It's OK that you think that.  And you know what, gungrabbing fag?  The US Constitution already has a mechanism for changing it.  It's been started about 11000 times in the US Congress, and has resulted in less than 30 amendments in over 200 years.  Gungrabbing fags like yourself in the USA have every recourse to the amendment system.  Notice, however, they don't like to use it.  They prefer to have OTHER gungrabbing fags like yourself pass laws and then dare citizens to spend time and money in the courts knocking them down.

You gungrabbing fags realize that we're ARMED, right?  Just checking.

>>19
How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe the government will be able to protect each and every person all the time?  When some burnout crack whore breaks into your house looking for money are the police just going to be there to protect you?  No, you'll call 911 and the cops will show up just in time to draw a line around your body.

Criminals don't give a fuck about what laws or bans are put in effect.  They're going to get a gun if they want, and they'll use it on law abiding victims because they know they'll be met with no resistance.  And there is no reasonable or affordable way the government can protect everyone, especially not in a country as large as the US.

OH LOOK AT ALL THE GUN CRIME
LET'S PASS ANOTHER LAW AGAINST GUNS
OH LOOK CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW ANYWAY
HURR HURR HURR HURR HURR HURR
AT LEAST IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DOIN' SOMETHIN'

Of course, line #2 contains an error, in that all these gun laws are largely UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

lol RedCream why do you rant on and on about shit being "unconstitutional" when you're (supposedly) not even American and bitch about how awful Americans and the American government are anyway

>>20
Is not the civilian protection agencies equipped enough to defend the civilian population? If not, thats where the focus should be, they should be equipped, not the people they're protecting.

>>21 / >>23
I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and I apologize if I get it wrong. You're saying that it would be unwise to remove the right from civilians to have firearms, because people who do not follow the law would still have them.

This is where the government control comes in, as I said above. The police force should be equipped to handle this, it works in most other civilized and equipped countries (See: Western World), and it should easily work in America, since you are the 'richest and most powerful nation in existance' (Rabblerabblerabble)

>>22
With a right wing agenda, I agree, a nation cannot protect its citizens, but instead of going across the world destroying peoples lives, they should bring back their own forces to protect their own citizens. Even a country like America it is very possible and quite easily done with your massive armed forces.

>>25
Ok, I see where you're coming from.  It's true that if our nation put all it's resources efforts in the right places we'd be a lot better off, and maybe citizens wouldn't need firearms.  But there are still a few things you have to understand.

1.  Posse Comitatus - The military cannot be used to police citizens.  We could get around it if we hired more police and less soldiers, but most americans don't want to live in a police state.

2.  Drug policies / failed war on drugs.  As it stands our drug policies end up creating criminals out of thousands, if not millions of non-violent offenders.  They go to prison and learn how to be a whole lot worse.  Current policies also make possible a very lucrative black market for drugs and guns, leading to even more crime and government corruption on many levels.  Check out a documentary called "American Drug War."  You'll learn a lot about how badly corrupted the system is.

3.  The right to bare arms was not created only for personal protection.  The founding fathers, who had just emancipated themselves from England's harsh rule, recognized that the people should be able to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.  That is why the second amendment is said to protect all other rights.

So, if you really wanted to disarm the civilian population without screwing over the masses you'd really have to change the entire culture of the country and find a way to ensure that as little corruption as possible finds its way into the government.  And that's just not possible.

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.

The right to bear arms argument comes with 2 problems.  1)it is referring to a militia, not the right to keep guns in your house.

and second problem is the fact that the gunfags who bitch about this forget 2 very important words.  "Well Regulated."  as a posed to drunk and blowing the shit out of everything

>>27
as a posed

Fail.  Your opinion is no longer valid.  gb2/middle school/

>>28
you try to spell after being educated in the Kentucky School System

>>26
(Refer to each point by number)
1. I'm not an American, so I am not positive as to your laws and regulations as to Military conduct in a civilian population, if I make a few mistakes, bare with me and correct me - I'm trying!
2. I agree, Western policies for the most part have been much too strict on drugs, even ones that aren't directly harmful to ones health (Aka, cannabis). One needs only to look towards a country in the Netherlands and see that they're doing it the correct way.
3. In the time of the Founding of America, I agree - It was a very useful commitment and it worked and was needed. Then, however it is the 21st century and the United States is much more stable then it was back in the 17th century. (I don't think England is going to sail over and start taking back her colonies, eh?)

Therefore, modernization of all aspects of your government really should happen, look North to your neighbours in Canada, in 1982 they rewrote their Constitution and made it modernized and removed a lot of the flab and older aspects that aren't needed to do.

The same thing could, and should really happen to your own, times change and you truly do need to adapt. I am not saying to do it overnight, progress and change needs to happen over time - However it needs to happen, especially in the world we're living in now with the rising gas prices, having the general civilian population with access to violent ways to 'protest' isn't a safe bet for everyone.

A more leftist way, by moving resources from war and being able to mobilize a huge force at a moments notice to infrastructure and social programs will do wonders.

>>27
A milita isn't civilians with weapons, in their houses, doing what they will. A milita comes in action only in the defense of the nation and is controlled by the government, much more different and very acceptable.

>>27
You fail basic English comprehension, since you are indoctrinated in the Liberal mindset.  The sentence in the Second Amendment CLEARLY states that you have to have the right TO BEGIN WITH, before any militia business is enacted.  That means you CAN own and handle and store guns in your home, on your person, and in fact anyplace that you personally control (car, storage unit, etc).

You're just a huge gungrabber FAG.  You look at a clear English sentence and refuse to admit it says what it says.  Well, the SCOTUS just PWND your fuckass and now you have to either amend the US Constitution, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I appreciate your very carefully worded, well meaning and civil rebuttal.

As I've stated above, I am not an American - I do not know the Constitution by heart, nor do I want to. However what I say still holds true in a true milita, it should be in government control and not in the hands of civilians to oversee by themselves.

As for your second paragraph, I'm sorry to say that I don't understand enough of it to comment, :) .

>>32
You're not even an American. GTFO subhuman.

>>24 This.

>>33
<3 I feel the respect. Well, as even a 'subhuman' I can have an opinion and a view that may be more correct than your own. (Hey, its bound to happen sometime, isn't it?!)

>>33
LOL. As I said, YOU'RE NOT AN AMERICAN! THEREFORE YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING!! TRY FIXING THINGS IN YOUR TURD WORLD COUNTRY BEFORE SPOUTING OFF ABOUT AMERICA!

>>36
Ha, wow. I wonder, you must have some sortof attention disorder to feel the need be forced to use all capitals to convey your message.

Anyway, believe it or not - Non-Americans have opinions that do mean something, and are not worthless. And, as a country - Canada is doing pretty fine, hows that healthcare working out for you, America?

I apologize for feeding the Troll, but I felt kind today. To restate my arguement, the removal of the Second Ammendment in America would be a step in the right direction. Civilians do not need free access to firearms, there is no logical reason our day and age. Therefore, kudos to the first elected official that has the 'guts' and courage to remove it, you'll be a hero a decade later.

>>37
The health care in America is the best in the world, fool. That's why your filthy countrymen flock here for it.

Also, Americans see the right to self defense as a right we are born with, our government doesn't grant us that right, like in your country.
If your government doesn't trust it's own people with firearms then the FAIL belongs to you and your countrymen.

I could do with a hard black cock up my ass right about now.

I suppose I must use a tripcode now, grand. I was truly hopeing that because this was a text board, I could have  more mature debate, especially about politics.

Though I must say most  of you have been wonderful.