Here it comes! Slowly but surely, they will take your guns away?

Question

"In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment," he said. "H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans – gun owners and non-gun owners alike – by creating and expanding massive federal government databases, including medical and other private records of every American."
Someone in counseling during a bitter divorce, a child who at one point gets into a scrape on a school yard and is put on Ritalin, or even someone given "counseling" for issues such as depression during recovery from an accident or work-related injury are some other situations that could trigger such "disarmament by diagnosis," he said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57847

Trevor....As the primary reason for the Second Amendment was for protection against Gov't tyranny, I think we should have access to weapons that level the playing field. That includes Selective fire weapons and full auto......


Sorry, you're talking out your butt, repeating rhetoric.

In a major decision addressing interpretation of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court today overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, declaring the constitutional right to bear arms is not limited to militias as the city had argued.
The majority opinion in the 2-1 decision said activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The judges also ruled unconstitutional the city's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54627

I don't know where you have been.....
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws. Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.

OK, Jim, I'll start......Name one case that the SC found the 2nd as not being an individual right.
Cruikshank doesn't count because Cruikshank is cited out of context by claiming the court held the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the Constitution."
What you are not told is that the same thing was said about the First Amendment and the Court considered these rights pre-existing, thus they are not granted by the Constitution.

I could be a smart azz and just say "possession is 9/10s of the law." LOL

Answer 1

The underlying reason the government is getting so desperate to disarm the nation can be found in the insolvency of the Social Security Administration.
This program is projected to go broke in another 15 to 20 years and the steps needed to remedy the problem have been ignored. When the program does go belly up and the government finds itself trying to deal with 80 million seniors who want to know where the hell their check is, it would rather they be disarmed.
The Second Amendment to the constitution is very clear. The "people" as used in the Second Amendment are the same "people" as in the 1st, 4th, and 5th, Amendments. This has been upheld time and time again.
A side note to the terribly misguided fellow who believes that only hunting rifles should be in the hands of private citizens. While you are correct in your statement that the liberal judiciary has come to favor the criminal over the home owner with regards to the use of a firearm in the defense of ones home, ask yourself this very important question. Would I rather be alive in a courtroom defending my actions, or dead in a casket pushing up daisies?

Firearms, be they single shot .22's, a beautifully crafted Colt .45, or a mass produced 7.62 x 39 variant with a drum magazine in the hands of the "people" are what gives the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment it's teeth. " A well regulated militia". The Minute Man's Kentucky rifle was superior in almost every way to the British "Brown Bess" musket. The British KNEW this, and when the seeds of unrest were sown the FIRST THING THEY DID WAS TO TRY AND DISARM the colonists.

The current US federal government is no different than any other bloated, egocentric buracracy. It will take what ever steps it has to to ensure it acquires, and maintains ever more power and control over the lives of it's constituants, until they are no longer constituants, but "subjects"

With regards to H.R. 2640, I urge EVERYONE reading this to stop what they are doing and to CALL your Congressman and tell them NO!!!!

Answer 2

Well first off about "the people" being the ones deciding to go to war, there are SO many problems with that statement. First off we have a VOLUNTEER ARMY. That means if you don't want to go to war you can be discharged and not go. So in a sense the soldiers can decide if we go to war. And we can't have 90 year old men with pitch forks jumping on a plane and trying to start a war in Iraq, just because they think it is right, either. Also, would you really want a 16 year old with a gun. What if he gets mad after the Friday night game because he doesn't think that the coach played him enough? Or if his girlfriend breaks up with him? Or does Columbine ring any bells with you? If you a honest, good citizen in this country there is no problem obtaining and owning a gun! And last but not least, the government using ulterior motive to fuel a war is absurd. Only left wing, kool-aid drinkers forget what happened on 9-11, or do you think that we are just suppose to do nothing but bend over and let the terrorist fly another highjacked plane right up our @ss. Thanks for your conserns but do your homework next time!

Answer 3

Why is everyone so hyper about guns? The average citizen should have the option to own a gun, but nothing more then a hunting rifle or shotgun. No pistols, and nothing of the assault nature. Anything that can't be legitimately used for hunting shouldn't be in the hands of the public. Thumping your chest and crying that "they'll never take my guns" makes you sound like a hillbilly redneck or worse. If you could give one reason why you need to own a handgun or an assault rifle, I'd like to hear it. The "home protection" excuse doesn't work anymore, as the laws for shooting an intruder now favor the intruder over the homeowner.

America's love affair with guns is unsettling. Popularized in music, on television & film, today's "heroes" (mostly rappers and athletes) reinforce the stereotype that guns are good and you're not popular unless you get one.

Having a gun is like having a drug. It's there, and you don't have to use it. But eventually, it will be used, and someone will be hurt.

The 2nd Amendment was written when "government tyranny" was possible invasion by the British (or French) government when the US was still in it's infancy. It's not really relevant to today's standards, and hiding behind it only weakens your arguments. "Level the playing field"? Against who?

I'm betting that you're a big Bush Administration Supporter, and fear that terrorist hate your freedom and want to steal your job too.

Answer 4

It has been said that the way to boil a frog is to start him in cold water and to raise the heat slowly.

I agree that our 2nd amendment rights are under assault by the ones who wish to have total government control (but strangely enough, _they_ will not be subject to the rules) over our lives.

Remember, the first act of an oppressive government is to disarm the citizens.

Answer 5

The second amendment protects no rights for individuals to bear arms as the courts, including the supreme court, have ruled on countless occasions. Why do you think so many gun control law challenges have failed in court? The recent court decision that you mention will be overturned as so many other similar lower court decisions have in the past. Put my next paycheck against yours on it? I'll gladly argue constitutional and second amendment law concepts with you if you choose. But you'll lose big time.

Answer 6

You are exactly right. Take away the guns, and increase government protection for citizens, oops, I mean invade privacy of citizens. Sounds like a sure way to tyranny.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Answer 7

I agree with you. That is EXACTLY what they are wanting. And WHO will it hurt? The American Citizens. Look at what happened in Australia! They took away the guns and then the only people who had guns were the cops and thieves. Crime went up something like 300% since they did that!

Answer 8

Wow, thanks for bringing this story out into the open for me, I had not heard of this bill ! I can see their point about people with psychiatric issues not being in the frame of mind to handle a gun responsibly, but I think the bill goes to far to include such a blanket effect of all people who are war vets with PTSD or all people who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. An my other problem is this is a violation of HIPPA to check people's medical records ! We are gonna have to watch this one.........

Answer 9

I've been saying this. Nazi Germany went house to house to confiscate guns. That way they couldn't resist the takeover. I have a legally registered gun & I won't be surprised when I get a knock on the door. I'm learning Spanish. This isn't the country I knew & loved anymore. I'm heading South.

Answer 10

you are right the first amendment has been bought and sold by the media controlled by a very small few.
The right to gather etc. privacy, habeus corpus are all done in by Bush now all they need to complete things is The second amendment.