Ok folks, Obama has been in office about 18 mo., what new gun bans?

[briarpatch]

Dukkillr, right or wrong, dumb as rocks, trying to educate myself on the days issues because I feel I must, trying to get on top of obamas intent for this country. looking at his past, his record, his czars, his friends, what they have said, what they want, obamacare by a vote of 51 not legal at all, each vote bought, again not legal. etc. etc. etc........
I am amazed, not surprised, just amazed at your words. 
I sir take my hat and bow to you. You are a man after the heart of all here. Woodsmen, hunters, trappers, you have beat us all. You lived the outdoors in a way we could not. You have lived under a rock.

[nomosendero]

dukkillr, you made a statement about hoping it is not just about the second amendment. You are 100% correct. That is why any Second Amendment group does us such a disservice. They need to look at the over all big picture. The Constitution of the United States. Just because someone get an A+ rating from the NRA or any other group, does not mean they would make a great Congressman.

All of the amendment need to be taken care of, we cannot just focus on the second amendment.

You mean things like taking control of Corporations, firing the CEO's, closing dealerships & giving a good deal of ownership to Unions? Man, I am sure glad that didn't happen here, but Mr. Redhawk, if you see anything let me know!  

[Redhawk1]

dukkillr, you made a statement about hoping it is not just about the second amendment. You are 100% correct. That is why any Second Amendment group does us such a disservice. They need to look at the over all big picture. The Constitution of the United States. Just because someone get an A+ rating from the NRA or any other group, does not mean they would make a great Congressman.

All of the amendment need to be taken care of, we cannot just focus on the second amendment.

You mean things like taking control of Corporations, firing the CEO's, closing dealerships & giving a good deal of ownership to Unions? Man, I am sure glad that didn't happen here, but Mr. Redhawk, if you see anything let me know!  

nomosendero,
You have just listed the top layer, this cut goes to the bone on all the Unconstitutional things they are doing on a daily basis.
But I will keep an eye out for you..

[ironglow]

  With all the other commotion going on, I've lost track of the infamous "Cap & trade" bill. If they sneak that through, it will in many ways nullify our Constitution..

[Buckskin]

Dukkillr, right or wrong, dumb as rocks, trying to educate myself on the days issues because I feel I must, trying to get on top of obamas intent for this country. looking at his past, his record, his czars, his friends, what they have said, what they want, obamacare by a vote of 51 not legal at all, each vote bought, again not legal. etc. etc. etc........
I am amazed, not surprised, just amazed at your words. 
I sir take my hat and bow to you. You are a man after the heart of all here. Woodsmen, hunters, trappers, you have beat us all. You lived the outdoors in a way we could not. You have lived under a rock.

Every once in a while I get a good laugh from posts here.  This was one of them!!!

Although I can't say his words amazed me because of his history here...

[dukkillr]

Well I asked someone to explain their claim to me and one other person tried.  About 6 simply resorted to insults.  No surprise.  When someone who disagrees with you resorts to insults you know you've reached the edge of their intellectual capabilities.  Strangely, I don't think they realize we don't actually disagree, but for some it's simply the easiest thing to assign an opinion so they can attack it.

What I asked for were specific laws and the specific parts of the consitution or BOR that were affected.  The truth is that most have no idea what's in the Constitution or BOR other than the vague notion that you can own guns and should be able to pray in school.  I was hoping to discuss the actual specifics and maybe some would learn something, including myself.  Obviously a horrible goal.

Glad you were amused.  Lets work on the topic and not on insulting others... Come on, you can do it!

[nomosendero]

And you can do it as well.

Do we need a law that says specifically that the Gov. is not to take over a business? I think it is logical to read the Constitution & see that there is NO Authority to do such. It is obvious that the Gov. gets no authority by the Constitution to do so, or take over banks for that matter.

I do see where I may have been a little harsh, but on the other hand I know you are a smart guy & know these things. It would have been better to list these things as a reminder instead of joking about it, just like it would be better for you to not make false/ill-informed statements about others knowledge of the Constitution. So, maybe we can all relax just alittle.

[Redhawk1]

Well I asked someone to explain their claim to me and one other person tried.  About 6 simply resorted to insults.  No surprise.  When someone who disagrees with you resorts to insults you know you've reached the edge of their intellectual capabilities.  Strangely, I don't think they realize we don't actually disagree, but for some it's simply the easiest thing to assign an opinion so they can attack it.

What I asked for were specific laws and the specific parts of the consitution or BOR that were affected.  The truth is that most have no idea what's in the Constitution or BOR other than the vague notion that you can own guns and should be able to pray in school.  I was hoping to discuss the actual specifics and maybe some would learn something, including myself.  Obviously a horrible goal.

Glad you were amused.  Lets work on the topic and not on insulting others... Come on, you can do it!

OK now that you want to get some attention because some of the others gave you a little grief. Well there is a lot of us that love or guns, and know there is a lot more Amendments to our Constitution, and we defend them just as much.

You want to come here and try to belittle others as if we don't have a clue. But you want to feel as if you are the King of the information and know everything. You want people to give you examples, if your to lazy to poke your head outside or do some research for yourself, don't expect others to do it for you. You want to say your trying to make a point, as if we are a bunch of redneck dummy's that don't know about the Constitution. Maybe you should not sound so condescending, then people would not feel inclined to treat you as such.

[billy_56081]

I guess I can see no reason someone would want to try to have a discussion with someone whose job in life is to lie and twist facts. Pretty simple explainaton to me I guess.

The reason we are having so many issues with the constitution is because of the parasitic lawyers who are "interpreting" the Bill of Rights to us poor stupid people who chose not to go to law school.

[dukkillr]

Like I said...

[Dee]

Gosh what Redhawk said sounds familiar duk. I believe you've heard that before from others before Redhawk said it. Maybe it's true. Wouldn't hurt to check it out. Self examination?

[jimster]

The reason we are having so many issues with the constitution is because of the parasitic lawyers who are "interpreting" the Bill of Rights to us poor stupid people who chose not to go to law school.

Yep, and the plain truth really is, there is no need for constitutional scholars or lawyers at all, as the constitution and the meanings are explained so clear in a whole slew of other documented writings by the authors themselves. The reason these "constitutional experts" never want to go to the authors writings and explanations, is because they are so clear and to the point. Anytime one of these experts start to lecture me on their own views, I just give them several actual documented quotes from the authors, and ask them why they don't use the authors themselves and where they are getting their information.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms "

 

[nomosendero]

Like I said...

Well actually, like you didn't say, but here is another chance.

You said, "I hate these declaratory statements without any support" & i declare that the Gov. taking over a business/Corporation has NO Constitutional Authority,  & Unconstitutional. Tell me why it isn't so.

[dukkillr]

Like I said...

Well actually, like you didn't say, but here is another chance.

You said, "I hate these declaratory statements without any support" & i declare that the Gov. taking over a business/Corporation has NO Constitutional Authority,  & Unconstitutional. Tell me why it isn't so.

Sounds like a great answer.  Actually it may be more complicated because those companies wanted the money, but I'm certainly no fan of government take-over of private business.  I think people may be assuming my point to be pro-obama but it's really not.  It's a) anti either party and b) that a great percentage of pro-2nd people are far less supportive of many of the other amendments and rights.  The origional declaratory statement said we were losing ALL amendments first, and then the second would fall.  I was hoping the poster of that statement would warn us as to what attacks this administration is waging on many of the less discussed rights we have, since he was sure they were ALL under attack.  If the poster is right it would be good for us to know some specifics.

To Redhawks credit, he tried to answer the question.  He correctly (imho) cited the consitutional issues surrounding the Patriot Act, although we all know what administration started that.  He also cited illegal search and seizures but didn't tie it to the executive branch.  Honestly it is probably more of a LE issue than a political one.  No one mentioned who protects this right on a daily basis.  He admits little knowledge of some, and fails to address many more, which I think is appropriate since many are more or less unchanged... which brings us back to the statement that started my involvement with this post... that obama will "... destroy all the other amendments..."  I wondered where the attacks were from this administration on the ones that are less discussed (which is why I didn't cite the first, second, or tenth, since there are plenty of threads and legitimate concerns regarding those rights).

Unfortunately when people see something that isn't a cartoonishly simple statement regarding politics they assume you must be against them... so be it...  Simple minds need a simple world...

[nomosendero]

Like I said...

Well actually, like you didn't say, but here is another chance.

You said, "I hate these declaratory statements without any support" & i declare that the Gov. taking over a business/Corporation has NO Constitutional Authority,  & Unconstitutional. Tell me why it isn't so.

Sounds like a great answer.  Actually it may be more complicated because those companies wanted the money, but I'm certainly no fan of government take-over of private business.  I think people may be assuming my point to be pro-obama but it's really not.  It's a) anti either party and b) that a great percentage of pro-2nd people are far less supportive of many of the other amendments and rights.  The origional declaratory statement said we were losing ALL amendments first, and then the second would fall.  I was hoping the poster of that statement would warn us as to what attacks this administration is waging on many of the less discussed rights we have, since he was sure they were ALL under attack.  If the poster is right it would be good for us to know some specifics.

To Redhawks credit, he tried to answer the question.  He correctly (imho) cited the consitutional issues surrounding the Patriot Act, although we all know what administration started that.  He also cited illegal search and seizures but didn't tie it to the executive branch.  Honestly it is probably more of a LE issue than a political one.  No one mentioned who protects this right on a daily basis.  He admits little knowledge of some, and fails to address many more, which I think is appropriate since many are more or less unchanged... which brings us back to the statement that started my involvement with this post... that obama will "... destroy all the other amendments..."  I wondered where the attacks were from this administration on the ones that are less discussed (which is why I didn't cite the first, second, or tenth, since there are plenty of threads and legitimate concerns regarding those rights).

Unfortunately when people see something that isn't a cartoonishly simple statement regarding politics they assume you must be against them... so be it...  Simple minds need a simple world...

I wouldn't say it's a great answer, only a correct answer. Quite often there are people who want money & Unions who want control, but for that to leap into a Gov. takeover is Unconstitutional whether 1, 50 or no one wanted the money & the Gov. did not have to give it.
I do know that blanket statements using "all" or "always" can be a lttle much, at least for now!

[ironglow]

  Dukkillr said;

Well I asked someone to explain their claim to me and one other person tried.  About 6 simply resorted to insults.  No surprise.  When someone who disagrees with you resorts to insults you know you've reached the edge of their intellectual capabilities.  Strangely, I don't think they realize we don't actually disagree, but for some it's simply the easiest thing to assign an opinion so they can attack it.

What I asked for were specific laws and the specific parts of the consitution or BOR that were affected.  The truth is that most have no idea what's in the Constitution or BOR other than the vague notion that you can own guns and should be able to pray in school.  I was hoping to discuss the actual specifics and maybe some would learn something, including myself.  Obviously a horrible goal.

Glad you were amused. Let's work on the topic and not on insulting others... Come on, you can do it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dukkillr;
   Although I respect your education in the law, the answers are often much less complicated. Our Constitution was written by brilliant, multi-lingual men, who condensed volumes of "legalese" to simple statements easily understood by all. The only qualifier for one to correctly understand this document is a heart for the spirit of the statements and honesty enough to abide by them without subterfuge. It is a legal  document unparalleled in it's simplicity and honesty.
    It has taken multi-batteries of shyster lawyers and crooked politicians with their own agendas, attempting to subvert the original meaning & spirit of the founders for 200+ years, to get us where we are today.
  
   This battery of lawyers seem to have a principal aim of "obfuscating the obvious".
 
      Dukkillr; although I respect your law education, you would do well if you would refrain from being quite so patronizing. Most here know clearly the difference between right, wrong and the "slippery in between".
   As has been said by an old timer when a smarmy liberal asked him to describe legally, what pornography is..he said " I probably can't give you a legal definition, but I sure enough know the stuff when I see it" !  
  So it is with our freedoms; we may not be able to describe them in barrister approved legalese, but we darn sure know when someone is trying to Take these freedoms from us !

[Dee]

quote from dukkillr
Unfortunately when people see something that isn't a cartoonishly simple statement regarding politics the assume you must be against them...so be it...Simple minds need a simple world...



Ironglow. Well said sir. Education does not equate necessarily to wisdom nor intelligence. I have met many that thought they were smarter than me, but were instead "educated beyond their intelligence". The common man built this country with common, plain, and clear English. The so called "interpreter of the law" came in to confuse the issues for personal gain, and recognition. The outcome might be changed but the truth remained the same. Outcome and truth, are not always the same, and some haven't figured out that you don't need a law degree to understand the issues.
Lawyers seldom state issues but, prefer that YOU state issues, and then they can set back and pick YOUR statements apart, finding fault in your thoughts, and condemning them.
A large vocabulary of $2.00 words, and a condescending attitude of other folks intelligence is fine in a courtroom, although annoying, but in the cafe, or on the street, manners is the order of the day, and will get you home in one piece.

[SHOOTALL]

Dukkillr;
  You're the lawyer and I am not, but I do believe some of our original Bill of Rights have been greatly infringed upon. I am not blaming this administration alone, since it has been an incremental process. I do believe this present administration has moved against the Constitution  with unprescedented vigor. I always look at "original intent", referring often to the Federalist Papers.
  
      I mention specifically amendments 1,2,4,5,6, possibly 7,9 and 10...

OK, on some specifics I might even agree.  But it's those specifics I'm honestly interested in.  It would be impossible to count the number of wide ranging statements made on this board like, "[Politician I don't Like] is wiping his butt with the Constitution" or "We are losing our rights every day".  And no one ever looks more closely at those claims.  Frankly, I suspect that it is almost entirely driven by a belief that the second amendment is the only important right.  I hope I am wrong.  I hope when people say they support an expansive personal interpretation of the second they also extend that to all rights... but I doubt it.

So anyway, the question stands:  What rights have we lost under Obama, specifically (please cite the law and the right effected) starting with any amendment that doesn't include guns and what do you believe is Obamas plan to attack those rights not yet destroyed (again, please cite a likely law and amendment).  

BTW, was it intentional to skip the 8th in your list?

I think Obama has not addressed the second because he does not have the political capital either personally or as a party, to do so and it has fallen down in his list of priorities.  I don't see that changing during his term or terms.  If he could, I suspect he would certainly impose more restrictions than we see today.  I do not believe Obama is a supporter of the second amendment but I also don't see him as hostile to many of the other rights we should all care about (but probably don't).

This is not to be viewed as support for Obama.  I am only hoping to learn about some of these other attacks I am unaware of.

The right to decide what if any health insurance we want . My state has a law to protect this right as we cannot be forced to buy anything. If the federal law stands we in Va. have lost this freedom . Hope this clears it up for ya !

[nomosendero]

Yes Shootall, that is another right lost & it won't be that tough to list more if needed.

[dukkillr]

Yes Shootall, that is another right lost & it won't be that tough to list more if needed.

Again, I was looking for rights lost that are listed in the less popular amendments (not the 1st, 2nd, or 10th) because the initial statement was that they were ALL under attack.  Again, I'm no fan of mandating heath insurance (and I can point to old threads where I said that), but I don't see which of the amendments it applies to.

[beerbelly]

The constitution was written not to say what government can't do, but to say what it can do! They have no authority to do anything else. If the constitution dose not specifically give the government that power, anything else they do is un-constructional!
                                Beerbelly

[SHOOTALL]

Yes Shootall, that is another right lost & it won't be that tough to list more if needed.

Again, I was looking for rights lost that are listed in the less popular amendments (not the 1st, 2nd, or 10th) because the initial statement was that they were ALL under attack.  Again, I'm no fan of mandating heath insurance (and I can point to old threads where I said that), but I don't see which of the amendments it applies to.

Sorry duk didn't know you were cherry picking rights !

[dukkillr]

Yes Shootall, that is another right lost & it won't be that tough to list more if needed.

Again, I was looking for rights lost that are listed in the less popular amendments (not the 1st, 2nd, or 10th) because the initial statement was that they were ALL under attack.  Again, I'm no fan of mandating heath insurance (and I can point to old threads where I said that), but I don't see which of the amendments it applies to.

Sorry duk didn't know you were cherry picking rights !

I'm certainly not.  Reread my first post and you'll see that I entered this discussion only hoping to draw attention to attacks on some of the less discussed rights.

[ironglow]

 This thread started with "what new gun bans?", but we can shift gears to further examine attempts by the Obama administration to undermine Constitutional rights.  I won't dig in to each article but any here will recognize assaults upon our freedoms.

A) Medical plan, attempting to force people to purchase something..

B) For this same medical plan which most people will be forced to buy, certain groups (e.g. Mormons, Amish and Muslims) will be exempted from mandatory purchase. Still, some of these can avail themselves of the system others are forced to pay for. How does that set with the "equal protection" clause ?
C) The bogus thing called "card check", which if enacted will destroy the confidentiality of one's vote. In order to coddle the unions, Obama is ready to enact a law which opens the individual voter's choice to union scrutiny.
 D) The "fairness doctrine"..Obamanites are pushing for a so-called "fairness doctrine" where aiming at conservative broadcasters and forcing them to give 1/2 the time they have paid for to liberals rebutal ..free of cost
 E) During the last election cycle, thugs from the "New Black Panther" organization, stood in the front doors of voting venues (Philadelphia) with clubs..intimidating anyone away who looked like may disagree with their politics. When the case came before the Obama "justice" dept..they dismissed the case out of hand. Again, how about "equal protection" ?
 F) The Obama administration is doing it's very best to institute a "Cap and Trade" law. This law if enacted , would put a bureaucrat in a position to daily usurp the Constitution. He/she would have dictatorial poowers over many facets of the Constitution which guarantees our personal freedoms. All this is based on an unproven and highly disputed "global warming" scheme.
  G) Even now, the B. Hussein Obama regime are schemeing up ways to undercut the recent court decision allowing entities such as the NRA and the "T" party folks to be advertising right up until election day, just as the major parties do.

  There's a few for starters, and most here know the BHO mob is working on these power grabs even while we speak. Most folks here may not be able to provide you with a case number, but they know those b ent ondestroying freedom...when they see it !

[Dweezil]

Ok, just to get it clear it MY head...and to get back on to the original topic.  To date, we haven't yet lost any of our gun rights under Obama. Right? And there is no pending legislation that has made it out of sub-committee curtailing our gun rights.  Right? No Executive orders curtailing our rights.  No US Supreme Court decisions  curtailing those rights. 

[Buckskin]

For the life of me I don't know why you guys even waste your time arguing with SuPer DuCk.  I gave it up years ago...  There are a few guys in here that I have bumped heads with on occation but still have a lot of respect for. For example Dee... I know that when we have a "discussion" he is shooting from the hip and at least believes in what he is stating and not just doing it to be an (use your imagination).  Some in here I think just like to argue for the sake of arguing and are the first to complain about name calling, then two posts later they will call you simple minded.....

You know what they call it when a bus full of lawyer's crash into the grand canyon???

[Dee]

A damn good start? Or littering? Or illegal dumping?

[powderman]

A damn good start? Or littering? Or illegal dumping?

HEH, ya beat me to it. POWDERMAN. 

[Buckskin]

I was thinking - damn good start, but like the others also...

[SHOOTALL]

No out right bans but there has been some creative work at gun shows as of late .