Posted on Oct 5, 2015
Why is this leftist government trying so hard to disarm its people?
11.2K
142
134
7
7
0
What is really behind Obamas constant attemts to disarm America? Is this why he wants a nationalized police force so badly?
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Barack Obama
Conspiracy Theories
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 35
7
7
0
Philosophical difference.
The goal is always to get to the root of the problem. Always. Unfortunately, there are those who view "access to arms" as the root of the problem. They believe that removing access will solve the issue.
Unfortunately, it does solve a "symptom of the problem" but often transfers the issue elsewhere.
If we take a look at all the complaints of "(easy) access to firearms" which are generally speaking: Suicides & Violence, removing a specific tool doesn't fix those. Countries with "no" access still have those problems at similar rates. Removing guns doesn't fix Suicide. Removing guns doesn't fix violence.
Now, there is the argument regarding "potential for harm" in that knives can cause less harm than firearms. That's a great argument, however we already have as many guns as people, and confiscation is not going to happen. It's a non-starter. Additionally, violence as a trend has been declining for 30+ years, so quantitatively the issue is dropping as well. And then finally medicine is reaching the point where it's not "as true" as it used to be. So the argument's merits are just dwindling based on era.
The goal is always to get to the root of the problem. Always. Unfortunately, there are those who view "access to arms" as the root of the problem. They believe that removing access will solve the issue.
Unfortunately, it does solve a "symptom of the problem" but often transfers the issue elsewhere.
If we take a look at all the complaints of "(easy) access to firearms" which are generally speaking: Suicides & Violence, removing a specific tool doesn't fix those. Countries with "no" access still have those problems at similar rates. Removing guns doesn't fix Suicide. Removing guns doesn't fix violence.
Now, there is the argument regarding "potential for harm" in that knives can cause less harm than firearms. That's a great argument, however we already have as many guns as people, and confiscation is not going to happen. It's a non-starter. Additionally, violence as a trend has been declining for 30+ years, so quantitatively the issue is dropping as well. And then finally medicine is reaching the point where it's not "as true" as it used to be. So the argument's merits are just dwindling based on era.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
An armed society is a polite society. A disarmed society is a subservient society. The government does not grant us our rights, they are unalienable. The notion that some would think they can be taken away by government demonstrates how far we have slipped already.
(7)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc. If you get caught with a gun in NYC you are going to prison for a long time. Exhibit A: Plexico Burress of the NY Giants. He was a superbowl here and I think he served a little less than two years in prison for gun possession. What fate might await a Cabbie in front of a NYC judge?
You are correct that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from placing restrictions on gun ownership. It did not prevent the state from doing so. We have all sorts of issues in the federal constitution being hoisted upon the states by activist judges. The most recent example was the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage which is not even a federal issue but they wrap it in under the equal protection clause and make sweeping rulings. Even gun ownership does not have that sweeping of an interpretation. It is illegal to own weapons in some states/areas which one would think would violate the equal protection clause if gay marriage can be covered by it.
There was not a federal militia at the time, as a matter of fact there was not even supposed to be a standing army except in times of war. The militias were strictly a state organization and they were not regulated like the reserves are today with forma drills and the like. You became a part of the militia voluntarily.
You are correct that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from placing restrictions on gun ownership. It did not prevent the state from doing so. We have all sorts of issues in the federal constitution being hoisted upon the states by activist judges. The most recent example was the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage which is not even a federal issue but they wrap it in under the equal protection clause and make sweeping rulings. Even gun ownership does not have that sweeping of an interpretation. It is illegal to own weapons in some states/areas which one would think would violate the equal protection clause if gay marriage can be covered by it.
There was not a federal militia at the time, as a matter of fact there was not even supposed to be a standing army except in times of war. The militias were strictly a state organization and they were not regulated like the reserves are today with forma drills and the like. You became a part of the militia voluntarily.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; Might I suggest that you review the Militia Act of 1903. EVERY male in the United States of America between the ages of 17 and 45 who is not an active member of the US military IS a member of "The Militia" (even if they don't know it). There isn't anything "voluntary" about it at all.
This definition is a carry forward of The Militia Act of 1792 which said " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.".
You might also want to pay some attention to Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States of America which says "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.".
In short, there may well NOT have been a "WELL REGULATED Militia" at the beginning of the country, but the Founding Fathers certainly had the original intention for there to be one and Congress has the constitutional and statutory power to actually ensure that "The Militia" is "well regulated" by imposing terms and standards of training and equipment (as well as imposing penalties for failing to meet those standards).
You will note that there isn't a word in any of those three references that indicates that "Congress" has to pay a dime towards either the equipping of "the Militia" or even towards the sustenance of the members of "the Militia" should it be called out "to execute the laws of the Union", or called out to "suppress insurrections" or called out to "repel invasions".
Theoretically, "Congress" could "call out" 100% of the male members of every Grade 12 class in the country on the same day and ship them all off to a single location for "training".
This definition is a carry forward of The Militia Act of 1792 which said " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.".
You might also want to pay some attention to Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States of America which says "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.".
In short, there may well NOT have been a "WELL REGULATED Militia" at the beginning of the country, but the Founding Fathers certainly had the original intention for there to be one and Congress has the constitutional and statutory power to actually ensure that "The Militia" is "well regulated" by imposing terms and standards of training and equipment (as well as imposing penalties for failing to meet those standards).
You will note that there isn't a word in any of those three references that indicates that "Congress" has to pay a dime towards either the equipping of "the Militia" or even towards the sustenance of the members of "the Militia" should it be called out "to execute the laws of the Union", or called out to "suppress insurrections" or called out to "repel invasions".
Theoretically, "Congress" could "call out" 100% of the male members of every Grade 12 class in the country on the same day and ship them all off to a single location for "training".
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
I may not be as well versed in the Militia act of 1903 as you are but I understood that the Militia Act of 1908 was replaced/overridden by the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 and maybe others.
Theories are nice but I would like to see the 1903 act in action. You and I both know there is zero chance that would pass muster today. A federal judge (or many) would have that thing halted in it's tracks. Also. not sure how the following acts (referenced above) affect the 1903 act and I don't care to take the time to compare them.
Some commentary on Article I,. Section 8. There was not unanimity amongst the founders on the standing army question.
____________________________________________________________________
For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.
The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.
The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.
The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."
Theories are nice but I would like to see the 1903 act in action. You and I both know there is zero chance that would pass muster today. A federal judge (or many) would have that thing halted in it's tracks. Also. not sure how the following acts (referenced above) affect the 1903 act and I don't care to take the time to compare them.
Some commentary on Article I,. Section 8. There was not unanimity amongst the founders on the standing army question.
____________________________________________________________________
For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.
The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.
The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.
The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; The National Defence Act of 1916 dealt solely with the organization of the "regular army" and the "National Guard". The subsequent amendments did the same. None of them overrode the Militia Act of 1903 as far as the "militia" was concerned.
IF, and I do not support this view, the National Guard is NOW "the militia" then Americans lost their "Second Amendment Rights" over 100 years ago. IF the National Guard is NOT "the militia" (and I do support this view) then the definition of "militia" from 1903 still stands and Congress still has the constitutional power to require every male American between 17 and 45 to actually undergo the training as specified by Congress (and, since there isn't any requirement in the legislation that those people be paid, without paying them).
IF, and I do not support this view, the National Guard is NOW "the militia" then Americans lost their "Second Amendment Rights" over 100 years ago. IF the National Guard is NOT "the militia" (and I do support this view) then the definition of "militia" from 1903 still stands and Congress still has the constitutional power to require every male American between 17 and 45 to actually undergo the training as specified by Congress (and, since there isn't any requirement in the legislation that those people be paid, without paying them).
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The left is not trying to disarm people. A few lefties maybe, but the whole of the left machine? No dude, that's just paranoia talking. I mean seriously, it's easier to buy a gun than a car and they are both quite lethal in the wrong hands. My biggest thing is that most of the super pro guns people who rant on and on about "leftist" anti gun policies have put in years of practice and are reasonable, safe, and responcible around firearms. Is it so unreasonable to try to make sure that everyone who purchases a firearm is held up to some measurable standard of safety prior to taking ownership?
You have to pass a test and be licensed before you can own and operate your own car, which then has to be registered . . . Not stopping anyone from doing it the correct way, now is it? Why not do at least that much for firearms.
You have to pass a test and be licensed before you can own and operate your own car, which then has to be registered . . . Not stopping anyone from doing it the correct way, now is it? Why not do at least that much for firearms.
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I still dont see it happening for the reasons i said above, but youve made some good points
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - I would highly advise not bringing up the issue of software registration and the ability or non-ability of the software being confiscated or disabled. I am not a lawyer, but in this subject area, I will have to highly disagree on whether that is possible or not. Secondly in that subject area not only could the owner/copyright holder do this but a malicious third party could disable or corrupt the software, also. Third, in the arena of computer software, the computer system can be effected whether it is or is not connected to a network or other communications medium. How do I know, I worked in that industry for 17.5 years.
Also SGT (Join to see) has a point about the confiscation of funds/money without due process by the federal government, but it is also done by local law enforcement agencies with encouragement by the federal government. You do not hear about it too often, but it is quite onerous and some of the individuals that have had their money confiscated/stolen do not even try to recover it after they find out that it will cost them more than what they lost. When this occurs the local and or federal agency treats it as found property and then is able to treat it as though it belongs to them without due process. The biggest part of this issue is the lack of due process and in most cases the inevitable loss of the money and or property.
What the bottom line is or the executive summary is - It can happen and has happened, even without registration; an individuals rights are violated without the individual having any or little recourse. And that is by both the local and federal law enforcement agencies and other federal authorities.
Also SGT (Join to see) has a point about the confiscation of funds/money without due process by the federal government, but it is also done by local law enforcement agencies with encouragement by the federal government. You do not hear about it too often, but it is quite onerous and some of the individuals that have had their money confiscated/stolen do not even try to recover it after they find out that it will cost them more than what they lost. When this occurs the local and or federal agency treats it as found property and then is able to treat it as though it belongs to them without due process. The biggest part of this issue is the lack of due process and in most cases the inevitable loss of the money and or property.
What the bottom line is or the executive summary is - It can happen and has happened, even without registration; an individuals rights are violated without the individual having any or little recourse. And that is by both the local and federal law enforcement agencies and other federal authorities.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - I will add this about the software SSG. When You click "I agree to the terms and conditions......" it then becomes a legally binding agreement. I can guarantee, 99% of people do not read the EULA. A lot of the EULAs out there from different software companies (Facebook and Microsoft included) are pretty scary. So read them. But, like I said, this is a whole new beast in and of itself.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - Your preaching to the choir on the subject of software and EULAs. Like I said before, I know from personal experience of working in that industry.
Don't forget about the shrink-wrap license and it's variants.
And did you read my entire statement? Did you miss the part where I worked in the software industry for 17.5 years?
Don't forget about the shrink-wrap license and it's variants.
And did you read my entire statement? Did you miss the part where I worked in the software industry for 17.5 years?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google