Shotgun Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

O'Reilly on Aurora, guns...

Jump to Latest

  • Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.

    Advertisement
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
#21 ·
So very true, Randy. But the old guard of both parties wouldn't be so happy.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#23 ·
Nobody has ever figured out any better way than to have a party on the left and the right. I wish we had a party in the middle, but there hasn't ever been one.

No reason, though, that both parties can't respect all the constitution and all the amendments. There are lots of other things to argue over. Trouble is, people think that everything they like was the reavealed wisdom of the founding fathers and if they don't like it, then it's unconstitutional and there ought to a law against it, or a law making you like it and a crimnal if you don't.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#25 ·
I'm not a very good prophet. Yesterday Obama said something about keeping making it harder for people with mental problems from buying guns and having the FBI do better background checks and that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK47's belong on the battlefields of war, not the on our streets.

Whoops. Sounds like Obama is talking about the gun control I said he wouldn't talk about. At least he sounds kind of like Bill O'Rielly.:)
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#26 ·
SuperXOne said:
I'm not a very good prophet. Yesterday Obama said something about keeping making it harder for people with mental problems from buying guns and having the FBI do better background checks and that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK47's belong on the battlefields of war, not the on our streets.

Whoops. Sounds like Obama is talking about the gun control I said he wouldn't talk about. At least he sounds kind of like Bill O'Rielly.:)
Click to expand...
Pretty weak argument when you ask liberal gun owners who believe the only sporting weapons are o/u and sxs shotguns and home defense is a 9-11 call.

AK47s belong in the hands of citizens. So do Ar15s. So do Glocks. So do HKs. So do Sigs. So do 1911s.

Obama is being a spineless *****, again.
 
#27 ·
SuperXOne said:
I'm not a very good prophet. Yesterday Obama said something about keeping making it harder for people with mental problems from buying guns.....
Click to expand...
Does that mean liberals will have to give up all of their guns?

Liberalism is a mental disorder, dontcha know! :)
 
#28 ·
The Second Amendment is not about sporting. It's not about hunting, either. Let's not allow the skinny Kenyan to take our eye off the real ball.

The Second Amendment is about defending against tyranny.

We've not been this close to tyranny in my lifetime. Obama thinks he can undermine federal law with executive orders directed at various agencies. He thinks he can openly pick and choose which laws he's going to enforce and which one's won't be enforced. He thinks he can smuggle weapons into neighboring countries to arm drug cartels without that country's knowledge. He forced upon the nation that which the marjority did not want.

Our Founders are rolling over in their graves. In their time, an Obama would be have been tried for treason and abuse of power.

He's a narcissistic dictator in the making. To suggest otherwise requires an absolute disconnect from reality.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#29 ·
O'Reilly is a big government, Obama apologist, entertainer. On the other hand he does (IMO) address the current most newsworthy items and has good guests. He loves him some government authority and has no grasp of second amendment underpinnings.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #30 ·
DCx2 said:
He's a narcissistic dictator in the making. To suggest otherwise requires an absolute disconnect from reality.
Click to expand...
Typical Kenyan potentate.

Just watch if the election is close. They will cling to that WH like nothing any of us have ever seen.

This election has to go at least 55/45, or there WILL be trouble.
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
DCx2 said:
He's a narcissistic dictator in the making. To suggest otherwise requires an absolute disconnect from reality.
Click to expand...
Typical Kenyan potentate.

Just watch if the election is close. They will cling to that WH like nothing any of us have ever seen.

This election has to go at least 55/45, or there WILL be trouble.
 
#32 ·
Nah, we'll go quietly if we loose. We won't mess up the computers, steal all the furniture, or pardon any fugitive financiers. Bush was classy in the transfer to Obama. I expect Obama to do the same if he needs to do the transfer.

If Obama wins, he won't even have to move until 2016.

The American people win either way. We get this election craziness behind us.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#34 ·
That's a neat explanation, Randy. I agree entirely that the right recognized was that of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry and use) arms (personal weapons of offense or defense against people), shall not be infringed (unreasonably curtailed).

The first part is lawyers being wordy, and trying to explain why. We lawyers are full of a lot of hot air, and I wish we hadn't used such a flowery introduction and explanation of why the contsitution recognized the right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated (in excellent working order) militia (the entire population of military aged males in the State) being necessary (required) for the security of a free State (refers to individual states)-----

That's just the introduction. It explains why the people themselves have the right to arms---the people can use those arms in a well regulated militia to defend the people of the State. The militia was in effect the people themselves, and not the army. Usually, they would put the militia up front and require them to fire at least one volley before they ran away and hopefully the Contentinals (regular army) would then take over. The militias were necessary, but they weren't the usual and regular armed forces of the United States or the "select militia" which were made a part of the regular army. That indroduciton also recognizes (especially when read in conjuction with the 10th) that the individual states have the right to have their own public militia organizations, but the people have the right only to arms recognized, and not that of having private militias. No regional warlords are contemplated by the introduction. These rights are not granted, they are recognized. The rights already existed.

Self defense, the national guard, the right to hunt or shoot targets was not the reason why. But the right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. With arms, they can defend themselves and shoot skeet or pheasants, or heelerman can make us up some Bowie knives. But no crew served weapons such as nuclear weapons, cannons, or no personal battleships. Arms refers to individual weapons, and they should logically be of the same character as the foreign army the militia may face (fully auto AK47's today, and a Brown Bess back then)

But my interpretation isn't the only one. The Supreme Court's is the only one that counts. Heller says the right is subject to reasonable regulations that do not amount to infrigement, and didn't leave much guidance as to what is or isn't reasonable. You cannot outlaw a handgun,,,that we know.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#35 ·
SuperXOne said:
The Supreme Court's is the only one that counts.
Click to expand...
The problem is, no, the Supreme Court's opinion isn't the only one that counts. The Supreme Court is not compelled to hear cases: most of the time, the vast majority of the time they do exactly that . . . decline to hear cases.

There is a glut of litigation in process constantly, most of which is never heard. There are infringement cases all the time, copyright infringement, patent infringement . . . yet it is not remotely possible for the Supreme Court to look at every single event and decide what is permissible and what is not. Someone has to work through the entire system then ask them. Then, they decide if the want to hear the matter or not. About 99% of the time, they decline to review the case. According to the Chief Justice's year-end report for 2010, the US Supreme Court received 8,159 petitions for writ of certiorari for the 2009-2010 Term. Of these, only 87, or 1.005%, were accepted on appeal.

That's why the Supreme Court's opinion is a very long ways from the only one that matters: most of the time, they do not review and have no opinion.
 
#36 ·
SuperXOne said:
TBut no crew served weapons such as nuclear weapons, cannons, or no personal battleships. Arms refers to individual weapons, and they should logically be of the same character as the foreign army the militia may face (fully auto AK47's today, and a Brown Bess back then)
Click to expand...
Here's the problem with trying to re-write the 2nd Amendment. There will always be those that talk about what the Framers had in mind. It isn't what they had in mind, it is what they wrote. The Constitution of the United States was created to replace our failed government, the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, created by the Framers, was a failure. It took just 8 years for it to fail, so our second try was in 1789. Our second try was not exactly perfection, for it did nothing to address the majority of the population of the U.S. Women were not people under the Constitution. nor were black people. Certainly, Native Americans not people, either. The most heinous of moral crimes, slavery and the ownership of humans as personal property was avoided.

The 2nd Amendment was not about specific hardware, it was about weapons. Weapons are not new, especially rockets, bombs, and what we like to call weapons of mass destruction. It sure wasn't new when the "Star Spangled Banner" was written-- 1814. Rocket's red glare and bombs bursting in air was not the National Anthem until 1931. "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" is, in many ways, more pleasant.

According to some, rockets, bombs, and machine guns are suddenly not weapons. Yet, there was little debate about the 2nd Amendment in 1812. Nor was there any debate about the 2nd Amendment during WW1, where weapons of mass destruction were commonly used-- as in Mustard Gas. The 2nd Amendment was unscathed, even though far heavier weapons were in common use-- cannon, etc. The M2 Machine Gun, the Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun was designed in 1918. No 2nd Amendment discussion or infringement and it is approaching its 100th birthday. Grenades have been around along time, the Model 24 Stielhandgranate was popular since 1915. The Hiram Maxim machine gun was developed in 1884.

Modern weapons have been around since the late 1800s, yet no 2nd Amendment incursions. No nothing in WWI, WWII, the Korean Conflict. Now, 120 years ago, there is a debate about what a weapon is. We really must be slow learners.

Assault weapons are equally "anti-assault" weapons. It isn't a hardware debate, it is what it always has been in the 2nd Amendment-- acknowledgement of a God-given, fundamental right for American citizens to protect themselves from attackers; defending their Liberty and Freedom in the process. It has never been about encouraging a criminal act or tolerating it.
 
#37 ·
RandyWakeman said:
Assault weapons are equally "anti-assault" weapons. It isn't a hardware debate, it is what it always has been in the 2nd Amendment-- acknowledgement of a God-given, fundamental right for American citizens to protect themselves from attackers; defending their Liberty and Freedom in the process. It has never been about encouraging a criminal act or tolerating it.
Click to expand...
Truth. Thanks for that...
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #38 ·
America has already given the government FAR more than equality of firepower, by dint of their monopoly on everything from Armor to Air Power to WMD.

Semi-automatic firearms are the MINIMUM required to convince soldiers loyal to a corrupt government (Syria anyone?) that they are on the wrong side.

The Second Amendment is not about deer hunting; it is the ultimate guarantor of a free country.
 
#39 ·
The Supreme Court's opinion that all of us have an individual right to "keep and bear arms" which cannot "be infringed" by the Federal government or the State governments (including subdivisions) is in fact the law now. The left used to dismiss the idea that opinion was the law. But that leaves us to argue the extent of that right and what that right applies to protect.

It protects individuals. I think that means the "arms" protected from infringement are the personal arms a man can carry.

The right cannot be infringed. Infringement is one of those words that if taken literally would lead to the outrageous consequence that a theatre shooter could not be disarmed in the theatre if he were brandishing his weapons, which of course is not the case. We have the right of free speech, but not the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. The second amendment would not protect the right to brandish a gun in a crowded theatre either.

No right is absolute, and all rights extend only so far.

But from here on out, every lower court is bound to have to fit any restriction within the context of a reasonable regulation of an existing individual right to keep and bear arms, which really is a huge win for gun owners.

When I was in law school I took all the constitutional law classes offered. In my last year I made an appointment at my professor's office to ask him as politely as I could why in three years I had never heard the second amendment discussed, and barely heard the tenth amendment mentioned.
He told me that the second amendment only protected the right of states to have militias and conferred no individual rights, and the tenth amendment was likely intended to be a "truism"

Law professors don't say that anymore. All the lawyers and judges today know that the second amendment protects individual rights. They often are legislators who make the laws and all judges are lawyers who interpret the laws, and they are going to respect the idea of the individual's right to arms, but disagree on the extent of that protection.

The Heller decision didn't say what level of restrictions the law had to be to rise to an "infringement". That's where the debates are going to be from now on.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #40 ·
You sure about those modern day law professors, SX?

IDK, but I think the reason they ignored the 2A back in your day and to this very day are one and the same. They disagree fundamentally with its existence.
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
About this Discussion
44 Replies
12 Participants
Last post:
RandyWakeman
Shotgun Forum
posts
4.5M
members
165K
Since
2000
A forum community dedicated to Shotgun owners and enthusiasts including the Remington, Beretta, and Mossberg shotguns brands. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Shotgun Discussions Shotshell Reloading Sporting Clays Tactical/HD Shotguns Shotgun Opinions