PDA

View Full Version : is the RTTBA a personal right?


five.five-six
10-16-2009, 10:39 PM
is the RTTBA a personal right?

found this video thought provoking

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3yFn1KWK6fI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3yFn1KWK6fI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Alaric
10-16-2009, 10:56 PM
is the RTTBA a personal right?


I think you meant RTKBA. ;)

MrClamperSir
10-16-2009, 11:05 PM
That's the first 100% I've seen on this site. At least until the party pooper who just wants some attention arrives.:)

dantodd
10-16-2009, 11:06 PM
I am surprised he said this before Heller.

Legasat
10-16-2009, 11:29 PM
Let us hope he actually believes this, and it's not just another campaign speech.

bodger
10-16-2009, 11:43 PM
His definition of rights encroachment is what we have to watch out for.

pointedstick
10-16-2009, 11:56 PM
I hear people making this "fire in a crowded theater" analogy to justify gun control all the time, but it's a pretty false one.

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is akin to shooting someone in anger; they're both criminal misuses of the right in question. But the word "fire" in and of itself is neutral; inert. It has many legitimate uses besides inciting mayhem. Therefore, we correctly criminalize only the misuse of the word "fire", not other uses of it.

I suspect that most gun owners are in favor of criminalizing of the misuse of firearms in the same way, but not their ordinary use on the grounds that they may be misused at a later date.

Restricting guns and gun-related behavior in the interest of trying to prevent future crimes is the same thing as criminalizing or regulating other uses of the word "fire" on the grounds that the word could be used to commit the crime of inciting public mayhem.

AndrewMendez
10-17-2009, 12:01 AM
Urban communities.. does that mean I can go to Boonie Ville and do it?

B Strong
10-17-2009, 10:29 AM
Most every gun grabber recognizes that there is such a thing as the Second Amendment, it's just that in their view the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of the individual to possess inexpensive firearms, or powerful firearms, or firearms that shoot too many bullets, or firearms with barrels that are too short, or firearms that are reloaded too easy, or firearms that are too small, or firearms that shoot big bullets..etc, etc.

bodger
10-17-2009, 10:33 AM
Most every gun grabber recognizes that there is such a thing as the Second Amendment, it's just that in their view the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of the individual to possess inexpensive firearms, or powerful firearms, or firearms that shoot too many bullets, or firearms with barrels that are too short, or firearms that are reloaded too easy, or firearms that are too small, or firearms that shoot big bullets..etc, etc.


And they'd like to just grab all the ammo first.

Traitors to the Constitution.

five.five-six
10-17-2009, 8:38 PM
thanks, stuckinca, I knew someone was going to vote no

sherm2954
10-17-2009, 10:16 PM
they won't make firearms illegal...they will limit or eliminate access to ammunition.

also, it seems odd to me that people might thing the Framers meant for amendment 1 and 3 through 10 to refer to the individual, but amendment 2 applied to states...where does anyone come up wth that?

forgiven
10-18-2009, 12:49 AM
Obama is so full of s..t. His voting record proves he's as anti as they come. He's to the left of those schmucks Clinton, Schumer and Feinstein.

locosway
10-18-2009, 1:27 AM
A gun and mouth are the same thing. The gun shoots bullets, and the mouth shoots words.

While, you can't yell "Fire" in an auditorium to incite panic, you also can't shoot your gun in there either. However, if there was a bomb, and you needed to clear out the place, you could pull the fire alarm. So, if you need to shoot someone in self defense in that same auditorium, you could.

It's not illegal to carry your mouth into an auditorium, it's only illegal to shoot it off wrongly. Same with a weapon... It shouldn't be illegal to carry, just to misuse.

DK9mm
10-18-2009, 1:42 AM
Yes it is an individual right 67 - 97.10%
No it is not an individual right 2 - 2.90%
Voters: 69.

Two voted no?

Hmmmmmmm.

CalNRA
10-18-2009, 3:25 AM
Yes it is an individual right 67 - 97.10%
No it is not an individual right 2 - 2.90%
Voters: 69.

Two voted no?

Hmmmmmmm.

Gene and Oaklander. Those two are real gun grabbers.

True story.

five.five-six
10-18-2009, 8:26 AM
Gene and Oaklander. Those two are real gun grabbers.

True story.

chainsaw, StuckInCA 2 2.60%

StuckInCA
10-18-2009, 8:27 AM
Mine was done as a joke, lighten up guys.

StuckInCA
10-18-2009, 8:33 AM
they won't make firearms illegal...they will limit or eliminate access to ammunition.

Taxes are they way to limit a persons possession. Increase the amount one has to pay for a item, and you now have regulation.

Imagine your $400 Glock costing $8-900 due to the taxes imposed on it.

You OLL? Stripped going for $1000.

fullrearview
10-18-2009, 8:54 AM
Poll trolls!!!!!

nicki
10-18-2009, 12:09 PM
For those of you who vote that their is no personal right to keep and bear arms you are directed by me and probably the rest of the people who voted yes to donate any and all firearms you own to the Calguns foudation for disposal.

Donated arms will be disposed of by auction process where arms will be sent of to new owners who will care and love them unlike you.

I am sure that Gene would be happy to give you special "Gun Free Zone" stickers that you can post all over the entrances to your home.

Actions of the Calguns foundation will save lives, for the sake of the children, you must act and do so quickly.

Getting rid of those guns will give you piece of mind, you will no longer be a hypocrite.

Nicki

ojisan
10-18-2009, 12:20 PM
The Rights in our Constitution are the natural rights of all men.
The Founding Fathers thought it best to write all these rights down to remove any doubts and document their intentions and position.
But it is not the USA that gives us our rights, it is not the Constitution.
Should the USA disappear, and the Constitution be burned and forgotten, our Rights as men remain unchanged.

DK9mm
10-18-2009, 12:27 PM
The Rights in our Constitution are the natural rights of all men.
The Founding Fathers thought it best to write all these rights down to remove any doubts and document their intentions and position.
But it is not the USA that gives us our rights, it is not the Constitution.
Should the USA disappear, and the Constitution be burned and forgotten, our Rights as men remain unchanged.

here here!:cheers2:

:79: